I have a Server Sent Events route on my NodeJS app that clients can subscribe to for getting real-time updates from the server. It looks like follows:
router.get('/updates', (req, res) => {
res.writeHead(200, {
'Content-Type': 'text/event-stream',
'Cache-Control': 'no-cache',
'Connection': 'keep-alive'
})
const triggered = (info) => {
res.write(`\ndata: ${JSON.stringify(info)}\n\n`)
}
eventEmitter.addListener(constants.events.TRIGGERED, triggered)
req.on('close', () => {
eventEmitter.removeListener(constants.events.TRIGGERED, triggered)
})
})
Testing a traditional route using supertest
is simple enough in node:
test('Should get and render view', async() => {
const res = await request(app)
.get('/')
.expect(200)
expect(res.text).not.toBeUndefined()
})
However, this does not work when testing a SSE route.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to test a SSE route with Node? It doesn't necessarily have to be tested with supertest
. Just looking for ideas on how to test it, supertest
or otherwise.
I have an idea about how to integration test this. Basically, one would have to spin up a server before the test, subscribe to it during the test and close it after the test. However, it doesn't work as expected in Jest when I use beforeEach()
and afterEach()
to spin up a server.
I would mock/fake everything used by the endpoint, and check if the endpoint executes in the right order with the correct variables. First, I would declare trigger
function and close
event callback outside of the endpoint so that I could test them directly. Second, I would eliminate all global references in all functions in favor of function parameters:
let triggered = (res) => (info) => {
res.write(`\ndata: ${JSON.stringify(info)}\n\n`);
}
let onCloseHandler = (eventEmitter, constants, triggered, res) => () => {
eventEmitter.removeListener(constants.events.TRIGGERED, triggered(res));
}
let updatesHandler = (eventEmitter, constants, triggered) => (req, res) => {
res.writeHead(200, {
'Content-Type': 'text/event-stream',
'Cache-Control': 'no-cache',
'Connection': 'keep-alive'
});
eventEmitter.addListener(constants.events.TRIGGERED, triggered(res));
req.on('close', onCloseHandler(eventEmitter, constants, triggered, res));
};
router.get('/updates', updatesHandler(eventEmitter, constants, triggered));
With this code, the test cases would be like:
test("triggered", () => {
let res;
beforeEach(() => {
res = generateFakeRespone();
});
it("should execute res.write with the correct variable", () => {
trigger(res)("whatever");
expect(res.write).to.have.been.called.once;
expect(res.write).to.have.been.called.with(`\ndata: ${JSON.stringify("whatever")}\n\n`);
});
});
test("onCloseHandler", () => {
let res;
let eventEmitter;
let constants;
let triggered;
beforeEach(() => {
res = Math.random();
eventEmitter = generateFakeEventEmitter();
constants = generateFakeConstants();
triggered = generateFakeTriggered();
});
it("should execute eventEmitter.removeListener", () => {
onCloseHandler(eventEmitter, constants, triggered, res);
expect(eventEmitter.removeListener).to.have.been.called.once;
expect(eventEmitter.removeListener).to.have.been.called.with(/*...*/)
});
});
test("updatesHandler", () => {
beforeEach(() => {
req = generateFakeRequest();
res = generateFakeRespone();
eventEmitter = generateFakeEventEmitter();
constants = generateFakeConstants();
triggered = generateFakeTriggered();
});
it("should execute res.writeHead", () => {
updatesHandler(eventEmitter, constants, triggered)(req, res);
expect(res.writeHead).to.have.been.called.once;
expect(res.writeHead).to.have.been.called.with(/*...*/)
});
it("should execute req.on", () => {
//...
});
// more tests ...
});
With this style of coding and testing, you have the ability to make very detailed unit test. The downside is that it take much more effort to test everything properly.