#3835 fluent assertions

[martin-grofcik]

Check List:

• Unit tests: YES
• Documentation: NA yet

[filiphr]

This is an interesting idea @martin-grofcik. It allows for some good testing of processes / cases. I have some questions / ideas.

• In my opinion I think that a single flowable-assertj module where we would add optional support for different modules is more correct. Users don't need to care which module for asserting they want to bring. They can just add flowable-assertj and use whatever they want from there. We would need to have different entry points, but that is fine.
• I see that in the asserts we are doing DB calls all the time. What is the purpose of that? e.g. for hasVariableWithValue we first do hasVariable which will do a DB call and then we do another DB call. I think that it would be better if we treat the instance as is and don't do additional DB calls if it isn't needed.

[martin-grofcik]

Hi @filiphr.

re: single flowable-assertj I will change the structure.

re: DB calls.
What I would like to achieve is:

flowable-engine/modules/flowable-assertions/flowable-process-assertions/src/test/java/org/flowable/assertions/process/LongRunningProcessInstanceAssertTest.java

Lines 35 to 55 in ee24b3c

	ProcessInstanceAssert asserThatProcessInstance = FlowableProcessAssertions.assertThat(
	twoTasksProcess
	);
	asserThatProcessInstance.isRunning()
	.activities().extracting(ActivityInstance::getActivityId).containsExactlyInAnyOrder(
	"theStart", "theStart-theTask", "theTask1"
	);
	taskService.complete(geTaskIdForProcessInstance(twoTasksProcess.getId(), taskService));
	asserThatProcessInstance.isRunning().activities().extracting(ActivityInstance::getActivityId).containsExactlyInAnyOrder(
	"theStart", "theStart-theTask", "theTask1", "theTask1-theTask2", "theTask2"
	);
	taskService.complete(geTaskIdForProcessInstance(twoTasksProcess.getId(), taskService));
	asserThatProcessInstance.doesNotExist().inHistory()
	.activities().extracting(HistoricActivityInstance::getActivityId).containsExactlyInAnyOrder(
	"theStart", "theStart-theTask", "theTask1", "theTask1-theTask2", "theTask2", "theTask-theEnd",
	"theEnd"
	);

One asserThatProcessInstance evolves in the time, so there is no need to create a new instance. If we "cache" the instance status, it is not possible to achieve it.

[filiphr]

@martin-grofcik my question is why would you like to cache the instance? Why not do something like

 asserThatProcessInstance(processInstance.getId()).isRunning() 
         .activities().extracting(ActivityInstance::getActivityId).containsExactlyInAnyOrder( 
             "theStart", "theStart-theTask", "theTask1" 
         ); 
  
 taskService.complete(geTaskIdForProcessInstance(twoTasksProcess.getId(), taskService)); 
  
asserThatProcessInstance(processInstance.getId()).isRunning().activities().extracting(ActivityInstance::getActivityId).containsExactlyInAnyOrder( 
         "theStart", "theStart-theTask", "theTask1", "theTask1-theTask2", "theTask2" 
 ); 

 taskService.complete(geTaskIdForProcessInstance(twoTasksProcess.getId(), taskService)); 
  
asserThatProcessInstance(processInstance.getId()).doesNotExist().inHistory() 
         .activities().extracting(HistoricActivityInstance::getActivityId).containsExactlyInAnyOrder( 
             "theStart", "theStart-theTask", "theTask1", "theTask1-theTask2", "theTask2", "theTask-theEnd", 
                 "theEnd" 
         ); 

Perhaps we can even have a ProcessAssert that you can instantiate and then use it via processAssert.assertThatXXX

[martin-grofcik]

assertThatProcessInstance(processInstance.getId()).isRunning()

is too verbose and non fluent. I would prefer

assertThat(processInstance).isRunning()...

from the code reading perspective. assertThat(processInstance) still allows us to keep query result in the instance.

I do not know whether following adds the value:

   var assertThatOneTaskProcess = assertThat(processInstance).isRunning();

  taskService.complete(oneTaskProcessTask.getId());

  assertThatOneTaskProcess.doesNotExist();

My initial impl was storing process instance state in the assertion instance. So I do not mind.

Conclusion: What do you prefer?

[martin-grofcik]

Any update?