The Importance of Dependency Testing

Recently I revisited an Open Source project I started over a year ago.

This tool is built to hook into a much larger framework (Chef), and leverages a bunch of code many other people have written, and produce a specific result that I was looking for.

This subject is less about the tool itself, rather the process and procedure involved in testing dependencies.

This project is written in Ruby, and as many have identified in articles and tweets, some project maintainers don’t adhere to a versioning policy, making it hard to ensure working software across multiple versions of dependencies.
A lot rides on the maintainer’s adherence to a versioning standard – one very popular one is Semantic Versioning, or SemVer for short.

This introduces a few other questions, like how frequently should a writer release new versions of code, how frequently should users upgrade to leverage new fixes, features, etc.

In any case, my tool was restricted to running the framework’s version 10.x, considering that between major versions, functionality may change, and that there is no guarantee that my tool will continue working.

A new major version of Chef was released earlier this year and most of my existing projects are still on Chef 10.x, as this is still being updated with stability fixes and security patches, and the ‘jump’ to 11 is not on the schedule right now, so my tool continues functioning just fine.

Time passes, and I have a project running Chef 11 that I want to use my tool with.

Whoops. There’s a constraint built in to the tool’s syntax of dependencies that will report that “you have Chef 11, this wants Chef 10.x and not higher, have a nice day”.

So I change the constraint, install locally, and see that it works. Yay!

Now I want to commit the change that I made to the version constraint logic, but I want to continue testing the tool against the 10.x versions, as I should continue to support the active versions for as long as they are alive and in use, right?

A practice I was using for the tests that I had written was: given a static list of Chef versions, use the static entry as the Chef version for installation/test.

This required me to update the static list each time a new version of Chef was released, and potentially was testing against versions that didn’t need testing – rather I wanted to test against the latest of the mainline release.

I updated my constraint, ran the test suite that I’ve written, and whoops, it failed the tests.

Functionality-wise, it worked correctly on both versions, so the problem must be in my test suite, right?

I found a cool project called Appraisal, that’s been around for a while, and
used by a bunch of other projects, and you can read more about it here.
It allows one to specify multiple version constraints and test against each of them with the same test suite.

Sure enough, passes on version 10, not version 11. Same code, same tests. #wat

So now it’s time to do some digging. I read through some of the Chef ChangeLog, and decide there’s too much to wade through there, rather let’s take a look at the code my tool is using.

The failure was triggering here, and was showing a default value.
This meant that Chef was no longer loading the configuration file that I provide here correctly.

So I took a look at the current version of the configuration loader, and visually compared it with the 10.x version.
Sure enough, there’s one small change that’s affecting me: Old vs New

working_directory? What’s this? Oh, it’s over here, just a few lines prior.

Reading the full commit, and the original ticket, it seems like this is indeed a good idea, but why are my tests failing?

After further digging around in the aruba test suite extension I’m using, I realize that the environment variable PWD remains set to the actual working directory of my shell, not the test suite’s subprocesses.
Thus every time it runs, the chef_config_dir is looking in my current directory, not the directory the tests are running in.

After poking around aruba’s source code, and adding some debugging statements during test runs, I figured out that I need the test suite to change it’s PWD environment variable based on the test’s execution, which led to this commit.

Why is this different? Well, before, Ruby’s Dir.pwd statement would be invoked from inside the running test, loading the config from a location relative to Dir.pwd, where I was placing the test config file.
Now the test was trying to load the config from the process’ environment variable PWD instead, and failing to find the config.

Tests, pass, and now I can have Travis CI continue to test my code with multiple dependencies when it changes and catch things before they go badly.

All in all, an odd behavior to expect in a normal situation, as my tool is mean to be run interactively by a user, not via a test suite that mocks up all sorts of other environments.

So I spent about 2-3 hours digging around to essentially change one line that makes things work better and cleaner than before.

Worth it? Completely, as these changes will allow me to continue to ensure that my tool remains working with upstream releases of the framework, and maintain compatibility with supported versions of the framework.

TL, DR: Don’t skimp on testing you project against multiple versions of external dependencies, especially when your target users are going to be using more than one possible version.

P.S. Shout out to my girlfriend that generously lets me spend time hacking on these kind of things 😀

A picture is worth a (few) thousand bytes

(Context alert: Know Chef. If you don’t, it’s seriously worth looking into for any level of infrastructure management.)

TL;DR: I wrote a Knife plugin to visualize Chef Role dependencies. It’s here.

Recently, I needed to sort out a large amount of roles and their dependencies, in order to simplify the lives of everyone using them.

It wasn’t easy to determine that changing one would affect many others, since it had become common practice to embed roles within other roles’ run_list, resulting in a tree of cross-dependency hell.
A node’s run_list would typically contain a single role-specific item, embedding the lower-level dependencies.

A sample may look like this:

node[web1] => run_list = role[webserver] => run_list = role[base], recipe[apache2], ...
node[db1] =>  run_list = role[database]  => run_list = role[base], recipe[mongodb], ...

Many of these roles had a fair amount of code duplication, and most were setting the same base role, as well as any role-specific recipes. Others were referencing the same recipes, so figuring out what to refactor and where, without breaking everything else, was more than challenging.

The approach I wanted to implement was to have a very generalized base role, apply that to every instance, then add any specific roles should be applied as well to a given node.

After refactoring node’s run list would typically look like:

node[web1] => run_list = role[base], role[webserver]
node[db1] =>  run_list = role[base], role[database]

A bit simpler, right?

This removes the embedded dependency on role[base], since the assumption is that every node with have role[base] applied to it, unless I don’t want to for some reason (some development environment for instance).

Trying to refactor this was pretty tricky, so I wrote a visualizer to collect all the roles from a Chef repository’s role_path, parse them out, and create an image.

I’ve used Graphviz for a number of years now, and it’s pretty general-purpose when it comes to creating graphs of things (nodes), connecting them (edges), and rendering an output. So this was my go-to for this project.

Selling you on the power of visualizing data is beyond the scope of this post (and probably the author), but suffice to say there’s industries built around putting data into visual format for a variety of reasons, such as relative comparison, trending, etc.
In fact some buddies of mine have built an awesome product that does just that – visualizes data and events over time. Check them out at Datadog. (I’ve written other stuff for their platform before, it’s totally awesome.)

In my case, I wanted the story told by the image to:

  1. Demonstrate the complexity of the connections between roles/recipes (aka spaghetti)
  2. Point out if I have any cyclic dependencies (it’s possible!)
  3. Let me focus on what to do next: untangle

Items 1 & 2 were pretty cool – my plugin spat out an increasingly complex graph, showing relationships that made sense for things to work, but also contained some items with 5-6 levels of inheritance that are easily muddled. I didn’t have any cyclic dependencies, so I created a sample one to see what it would look like. It looked like a circle.

Item 3 was harder, as this meant that human intervention needed to take place. It was almost like deciding on which area of a StarCraft map you want to go after first. There’s plenty of mining to do, but which will pay off fastest? (geeky references, are you surprised?)

I decided on some of the smaller clusterings, and made some progress, changing where certain role statements lived and the node <=> role assignment to refactor a lot out.

My process of writing a plugin developed pretty much like this:

  1. Have an idea of how I want to do this
  2. Write some code that when executed manually, does what I want
  3. Transform that code into a knife plugin, so it lives inside the Chef Ecosystem
  4. Package said plugin as RubyGem, to make distribution easy for others
  5. Test, test, test (more on this in a moment)
  6. Document (readme only for now)
  7. Add some features, rethink of how certain things are done, refactor.
  8. Test some more

Writing code, packaging and documentation are pretty standard practices (more or less), so I won’t go into those.

The more interesting part was figuring out how to plug into the Chef/Knife plugins architecture, and testing.

Thanks to Opscode, writing a plugin isn’t too hard, there’s a good wiki, and other plugins you can look at to get some ideas.

A couple of noteworthy items:

  1. Figuring out how to provide command-line arguments to OptionParser was not easy, since there was no real intuitive way to do it. I spent about 2 hours researching why that wasn’t doing what I wanted, and finally figured out that "--flag" and "--flag " behave completely different.

  2. During my initial cut of the code, I used many statements to print output back to the user (puts "some message"). In the knife plugin world, one should use the or ui.error and the like, as this makes it much cleaner and consistent with other knife commands.


Since this is a command-line application plugin, it made sense to use a framework that can handle inputs and outputs, as that’s my primary concern.
With a background in systems administration and engineering, software testing has never been on the top of my to-learn list, so when the opportunity arose to write tests for another project I wrote, I turned to Cucumber, and the CLI extension Aruba.

Say what you will about unit tests vs integration tests vs functional tests – I got going relatively quickly writing tests in quasi-English.
I won’t say that it’s easy, but it definitely made me think about how the plugin will be used, how users may input commands differently, and what they can expect to happen when they run it.

Cucumber/Aruba also allowed me to split my tests in a way that I can grok, such as all the CLI-related commands, flags, options exist in one test ‘feature’ file, whereas another feature file contains all the tests of reading the roles and graphing them in different formats.

Writing tests early on allowed me to continue to capture how I thought the plugin will be used, write that down in English, and think about it for awhile.
Some things changed after I had written them down, and even then, after I figured out the tests, I decided that the behavior didn’t match what I thought would be most common.

Refactoring the code, running tests in between to ensure that the behavior that I wanted remained consistent was very valuable. This isn’t news for any software engineers out there, but it might be useful to more system people to learn more about testing.

Another test I use is a style-checker called tailor – it measures up my code, and reports on things that may be malformed. This is the first test I run, as if the code is invalid (i.e. missing a end somewhere), it won’t pass this test.

Putting these into a test framework like Travis-CI is so very easy, especially since it’s a RubyGem, and I have set up environment variables to test against specific versions of Chef.
This provides the fast-feedback loop that tests my code against a matrix of Ruby & Chef versions.

So there you have it. A long explanation of why I wrote something. I had looked around, and there’s a knife crawl that is meant to walk a given role’s dependency tree and provide that, but that only worked for a single role, and wasn’t focused on visualizing.

So I wrote my own. Hope you like it, and happy to take pull requests that make sense, and bug reports for things that don’t.

You can find the gem on – via gem install knife-role-spaghetti or on my GitHub account.

I’m very curious to know what other people’s role spaghetti looks like, so drop me a line, tweet, comment or such with your pictures!

Quick edit: A couple of examples, showing what this does.

Sample Roles

(full resolution here)

Running through the neato renderer (with the -N switch) produces this image:

Sample Roles Neato

(full resolution here