- Add BDD_SCHEMA_ISOLATION env var to enable schema-per-scenario mode - Generate unique schema names using SHA256 hash of feature+scenario - Implement SetupScenarioSchema() and TeardownScenarioSchema() methods - Handle search_path configuration for schema isolation - Use CASCADE drop to clean up all scenario-created DB objects - Add isSchemaIsolationEnabled() helper to suite.go - Update cleanup flow: skip table clearing when schema isolation is active - Add ADR 0025 documenting isolation strategies and decision rationale Activation: Set BDD_SCHEMA_ISOLATION=true to enable Debug: Set BDD_ENABLE_CLEANUP_LOGS=true for verbose isolation logging Generated by Mistral Vibe. Co-Authored-By: Mistral Vibe <vibe@mistral.ai>
241 lines
8.1 KiB
Markdown
241 lines
8.1 KiB
Markdown
# ADR 0025: BDD Scenario Isolation Strategies
|
|
|
|
## Status
|
|
**Proposed** 🟡
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
As our BDD test suite grows, we're encountering **test pollution** issues where scenarios interfere with each other through shared state. This is particularly problematic for:
|
|
|
|
1. **Database state**: Scenarios create users, JWT secrets, config entries that persist across scenarios
|
|
2. **JWT secret rotation**: Multiple secrets accumulate, affecting subsequent scenario authentication
|
|
3. **Config file modifications**: Feature flag changes persist between tests
|
|
4. **Gherkin Background steps**: Data set up in Background is visible to all scenarios in the feature
|
|
|
|
Our current approach clears database tables after each scenario, but this has **race condition vulnerabilities** with concurrent scenario execution.
|
|
|
|
### Gherkin Background Consideration
|
|
|
|
Crucially, Gherkin's `Background` section runs **before each scenario** in a feature, not once before all scenarios. This means:
|
|
|
|
```gherkin
|
|
Feature: User registration
|
|
Background:
|
|
Given the database is empty
|
|
And a default admin user exists
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Register new user
|
|
When I register user "alice"
|
|
Then user "alice" should exist
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Register duplicate user
|
|
When I register user "alice"
|
|
Then I should see error "user already exists"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The second scenario fails because Background creates data that persists, and the first scenario's data isn't cleaned up. Background steps are re-executed before each scenario.
|
|
|
|
## Decision Drivers
|
|
|
|
* **Isolation**: Each scenario must start with a clean slate
|
|
* **Performance**: Cleanup must be fast enough for CI/CD pipelines
|
|
* **Concurrency**: Must work with parallel scenario execution
|
|
* **Compatibility**: Must work with Gherkin Background steps
|
|
* **Maintainability**: Solution should be simple to understand and debug
|
|
|
|
## Considered Options
|
|
|
|
### Option 1: Transaction Rollback (Rejected ❌)
|
|
|
|
Wrap each scenario in a database transaction, rollback at the end.
|
|
|
|
```go
|
|
BeforeScenario: BEGIN;
|
|
AfterScenario: ROLLBACK;
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Pros:**
|
|
- Simple implementation
|
|
- Fast - transaction rollback is nearly instant
|
|
- No data cleanup needed
|
|
|
|
**Cons:**
|
|
- ❌ **Fails if scenario commits**: Nested transaction problem - `COMMIT` inside scenario releases the transaction, parent `ROLLBACK` has no effect
|
|
- Cannot handle non-database state (JWT secrets in memory, config files)
|
|
- Doesn't solve JWT secret pollution
|
|
|
|
**Verdict: Not viable** - Too many scenarios use database transactions internally.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Option 2: Clear Tables in Public Schema (Current ✅/⚠️)
|
|
|
|
Delete all rows from all tables after each scenario.
|
|
|
|
```go
|
|
AfterScenario: DELETE FROM table1; DELETE FROM table2; ...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Pros:**
|
|
- Currently implemented
|
|
- Works with any scenario code
|
|
- Handles database state
|
|
|
|
**Cons:**
|
|
- ⚠️ **Race conditions**: Concurrent scenarios can interleave - Scenario A deletes data while Scenario B is still using it
|
|
- ⚠️ **Slow**: Must delete from all tables, reset sequences
|
|
- ❌ **Misses in-memory state**: JWT secrets, config changes persist
|
|
- ❌ **Doesn't handle Background**: Background data is shared across scenarios
|
|
|
|
**Verdict: Partially adequate** - Works for sequential execution but has parallel execution issues.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Option 3: Schema-per-Scenario (Recommended ✅)
|
|
|
|
Create a unique PostgreSQL schema for each scenario, drop it after.
|
|
|
|
```go
|
|
BeforeScenario:
|
|
schema := "test_" + sha256(scenario.Name)[:8]
|
|
CREATE SCHEMA schema;
|
|
SET search_path = schema, public;
|
|
|
|
AfterScenario:
|
|
DROP SCHEMA schema CASCADE;
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Pros:**
|
|
- ✅ **True isolation**: Each scenario has its own database namespace
|
|
- ✅ **Works with transactions**: Scenario can commit freely - entire schema is dropped
|
|
- ✅ **Works with Background**: Background runs in scenario's schema, data is isolated
|
|
- ✅ **Fast**: Schema drop is instant (just metadata deletion)
|
|
- ✅ **Handles concurrent scenarios**: Different schemas = no conflicts
|
|
|
|
**Cons:**
|
|
- Requires `CREATE/DROP SCHEMA` database privileges in test environment
|
|
- Some ORMs may hardcode `public` schema - need to use `SET search_path` carefully
|
|
- Test DB must allow many schemas (typically fine for PostgreSQL)
|
|
- We need to handle `search_path` in connection pooling (each scenario needs its own connection)
|
|
|
|
**Implementation notes:**
|
|
- Use `Luego` (PostgreSQL schema prefix) approach: `test_{hash}`
|
|
- Hash: `sha256(feature_name + scenario_name)[:8]` for consistency across runs
|
|
- Execute Background steps in the scenario's schema context
|
|
- Set `search_path` at the connection level, not globally
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Option 4: Database-per-Feature ⚠️
|
|
|
|
Create a separate database for each feature file.
|
|
|
|
```go
|
|
BeforeFeature: CREATE DATABASE feature_auth;
|
|
AfterFeature: DROP DATABASE feature_auth;
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Pros:**
|
|
- Strong isolation between features
|
|
- Simple implementation
|
|
|
|
**Cons:**
|
|
- ❌ **Doesn't isolate scenarios within a feature** - Background data shared across scenarios
|
|
- Database creation is slower than schema creation
|
|
- Harder to manage in CI (more databases to create/cleanup)
|
|
- Still need table clearing between scenarios within a feature
|
|
|
|
**Verdict: Insufficient** - Doesn't solve intra-feature pollution.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Option 5: Schema-per-Feature + Table Clearing per Scenario ⚠️
|
|
|
|
Create one schema per feature, clear tables between scenarios.
|
|
|
|
```go
|
|
BeforeFeature: CREATE SCHEMA feature_auth;
|
|
AfterFeature: DROP SCHEMA feature_auth;
|
|
AfterScenario: DELETE FROM all_tables;
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Pros:**
|
|
- Isolates features from each other
|
|
- Simpler than per-scenario schemas
|
|
|
|
**Cons:**
|
|
- ❌ **Scenarios within a feature share state** - Background data persists
|
|
- Still has race conditions with concurrent scenarios in same feature
|
|
- Requires table clearing overhead
|
|
|
|
**Verdict: Better than current but still has issues**.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Decision Outcome
|
|
|
|
**Chosen option: Schema-per-Scenario (Option 3)**
|
|
|
|
We will implement schema-per-scenario because it:
|
|
|
|
1. Provides **true isolation** for all database state
|
|
2. **Works with Gherkin Background** - Background runs in each scenario's schema
|
|
3. **Handles concurrent execution** - No race conditions
|
|
4. **Works with scenario transactions** - Scenarios can commit freely
|
|
5. Is **fast** - Schema operations are cheap
|
|
|
|
### Implementation Plan
|
|
|
|
**Phase 1: Foundation**
|
|
- Add scenario-aware schema management to test server
|
|
- Implement schema creation/drop in BeforeScenario/AfterScenario hooks
|
|
- Handle `search_path` configuration for each scenario's database connection
|
|
|
|
**Phase 2: Connection Pooling**
|
|
- Configure connection pool to respect per-scenario `search_path`
|
|
- Each scenario gets isolated connections
|
|
|
|
**Phase 3: In-Memory State**
|
|
- Extend cleanup to handle JWT secrets (already implemented in suite.go)
|
|
- Add config reset capability
|
|
|
|
**Phase 4: Validation**
|
|
- Run full test suite to identify ORM/schema issues
|
|
- Fix any hardcoded `public` schema references
|
|
|
|
### Schema Naming Convention
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Schema name: test_{sha256(feature + scenario)[:8]}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
- Feature: `auth`, Scenario: `Successful user authentication`
|
|
- Hash: `sha256("auth_Successful user authentication")[:8]` = `a3f7b2c1`
|
|
- Schema: `test_a3f7b2c1`
|
|
|
|
Benefits:
|
|
- Unique per scenario
|
|
- Consistent across test runs (same scenario = same schema)
|
|
- Short (8 chars + prefix = 14 chars max)
|
|
- Identifiable for debugging
|
|
|
|
## Pros and Cons Summary
|
|
|
|
| Aspect | Schema-per-Scenario | Current (Clear Tables) | Transaction Rollback |
|
|
|--------|---------------------|----------------------|-------------------|
|
|
| Isolation | ✅ Strong | ⚠️ Medium | ❌ Weak |
|
|
| Works with Background | ✅ Yes | ⚠️ Partial | ❌ No |
|
|
| Concurrency safe | ✅ Yes | ❌ No | ❌ No |
|
|
| Works with TX | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
|
|
| Speed | ✅ Fast | ⚠️ Slow | ✅ Fast |
|
|
| DB privileges | ⚠️ Needs CREATE | ✅ None | ✅ None |
|
|
| Complexity | ⚠️ Medium | ✅ Low | ✅ Low |
|
|
|
|
## Links
|
|
|
|
* [ADR 0008: BDD Testing](adr/0008-bdd-testing.md) - Original BDD adoption decision
|
|
* [ADR 0024: BDD Test Organization and Isolation](adr/0024-bdd-test-organization-and-isolation.md) - Feature isolation strategy
|
|
* [Godog Documentation](https://github.com/cucumber/godog) - BDD framework specifics
|
|
* [PostgreSQL Schemas](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-schemas.html) - Schema management
|