The whole purpose of End to End testing is that your testing the system in a real state. It's an emulation of your live environment. Because of that you can do interesting things like find out what happens if you pull the plug or run out of disk or ....
The moment that you shove a mock in there, your unit testing. Effective but not the same. One of the critical points of E2E is that without mocks you know that your tests are accurate. Because this isnt Postgres I'm testing it every time and not that system.
>> Can someone elaborate on where/when/how this is better?
If your building PG for an embedded, light weight, or under powered system then this would make sense for verification testing before real E2E testing that would be much slower. (a use case I have)
Other than that its just a cool project and if you ever need a PG shim it's there.
I think you're being a little absolutist about this. Swapping out a possibly equivalent database engine does not turn anything into a unit test, which is defined by testing individual units of code in relative isolation. You can argue that it's not true end to end testing. But almost every E2E test I've seen involves some compromises compared with the true production environment to save money, time, or effort.
> If your building PG for an embedded, light weight, or under powered system then this would make sense for verification testing before real E2E testing that would be much slower. (a use case I have)
If this is actually just Postgres running in an x86 emulator (*edit: originally this said "compiled to wasm"), then how could this be faster than Postgres in any given environment? I don't understand — if it were faster, wouldn't you just want to deploy this in prod in your weird environment rather than Postgres? Why limit this to mocking?
Presumably, it's faster to boot and for tests because it doesn't need to access an actual file system; everything is in memory. That doesn't mean it would be any faster in production, and in fact, it wouldn't be useful in that environment even if it was.
Nah, by having in-memory versions of your dependencies, in-memory versions which fulfill the same interfaces as those used in your E2E tests (or the majority of your E2E tests) you unlock running your entire E2E tests suite in milliseconds-to-seconds instead of minutes-to-seconds. And because they're E2E tests that work with any implementation, you can still run your exact same test suite against your "real" E2E dependencies in a CI step to be super sure both implementations behave the same.
I've done this across multiple jobs, and it's amazing to be able to run your "mostly-E2E" tests in 1-2 seconds while developing and the same suite in the full E2E env in CI. It makes developing with confidence so fast and mostly stress free (diverging behavior is admittedly annoying, but usually rare).
Until you trust every part of the mock behaves the same as every part of the real database you use… most often the db is your boundary with nothing further downstream. At that point it really is just a faster disposable database, and totally is valid acceptance tests for the e2e system.
Also nothing stops you from using a mock for some tests and a real database for others. It just comes down to trust.
The moment that you shove a mock in there, your unit testing. Effective but not the same. One of the critical points of E2E is that without mocks you know that your tests are accurate. Because this isnt Postgres I'm testing it every time and not that system.
>> Can someone elaborate on where/when/how this is better?
If your building PG for an embedded, light weight, or under powered system then this would make sense for verification testing before real E2E testing that would be much slower. (a use case I have)
Other than that its just a cool project and if you ever need a PG shim it's there.