Hedgehog on a REST API, part 3

In my previous post on using Hedgehog on a REST API, Hedgehog on a REST API, part 2 I ran the test a few times and adjusted the model to deal with the incorrect assumptions I had initially made. In particular, I had to adjust how I modelled the User ID. Because of the simplicity of the API that wasn’t too difficult. However, that kind of completely predictable ID isn’t found in all APIs. In fact, it’s not uncommon to have completely random IDs in API (often they are UUIDs).

So, I set out to try to deal with that. I’m still using the simple API from the previous posts, but this time I’m pretending that I can’t build the ID into the model myself, or, put another way, I’m capturing the ID from the responses.

The model state

When capturing the ID it’s no longer possible to use a simple Map Int Text for the state, because I don’t actually have the ID until I have an HTTP response. However, the ID is playing an important role in the constructing of a sequence of actions. The trick is to use Var Int v instead of an ordinary Int. As I understand it, and I believe that’s a good enough understanding to make use of Hedgehog possible, is that this way the ID is an opaque blob in the construction phase, and it’s turned into a concrete value during execution. When in the opaque state it implements enough type classes to be useful for my purposes.

The API calls: add user

When taking a closer look at the Callback type not all the callbacks will get the state in the same form, opaque or concrete, and one of them, Update actually receives the state in both states depending on the phase of execution. This has the most impact on the add user action. To deal with it there’s a need to rearrange the code a bit, to be specific, commandExecute can no longer return a tuple of both the ID and the status of the HTTP response because the update function can’t reach into the tuple, which it needs to update the state.

That means the commandExecute function will have to do tests too. It is nice to keep all tests in the callbacks, but by sticking a MonadTest m constraint on the commandExecute it turns into a nice solution anyway.

I found that once I’d come around to folding the Ensure callback into the commandExecute function the rest fell out from the types.

The API calls: delete user

The other actions, deleting a user and getting a user, required only minor changes and the changes were rather similar in both cases.

Not the type for the action needs to take a Var Int v instead of just a plain Int.

Which in turn affect the implementation of HTraversable

Then the changes to the Command mostly comprise use of concrete in places where the real ID is needed.

deleteUser :: (MonadGen n, MonadIO m) => Command n m State
deleteUser = Command gen exec [ Update u
                              , Require r
                              , Ensure e
                              ]
  where
    gen (State m) = case M.keys m of
      [] -> Nothing
      ks -> Just $ DeleteUser <$> Gen.element ks

    exec (DeleteUser vi) = liftIO $ do
      mgr <- newManager defaultManagerSettings
      delReq <- parseRequest $ "DELETE http://localhost:3000/users/" ++ show (concrete vi)
      delResp <- httpNoBody delReq mgr
      return $ responseStatus delResp

    u (State m) (DeleteUser i) _ = State $ M.delete i m

    r (State m) (DeleteUser i) = i `elem` M.keys m

    e _ _ (DeleteUser _) r = r === status200

Conclusion

This post concludes my playing around with state machines in Hedgehog for this time. I certainly hope I find the time to put it to use on some larger API soon. In particular I’d love to put it to use at work; I think it’d be an excellent addition to the integration tests we currently have.

Leave a comment