angular-docs-cn/packages/service-worker/test/module_spec.ts

324 lines
11 KiB
TypeScript
Raw Normal View History

/**
* @license
* Copyright Google LLC All Rights Reserved.
*
* Use of this source code is governed by an MIT-style license that can be
* found in the LICENSE file at https://angular.io/license
*/
fix(service-worker): handle error with console.error (#40236) This commit reverts commit [_fix(service-worker): handle error with ErrorHandler_](https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/39990/commits/552419d). With Angular v11.0.4 and commit [_fix(service-worker): handle error with ErrorHandler_](https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/39990/commits/552419d) Angular start to send all service worker registration errors to the Angular standard `ErrorHandler#handleError()` interface, instead of logging them in the console. But users existing `ErrorHandler#handleError()` implementations are not adapted to service worker registration errors and it might result in broken apps or bad UI. Passing to `ErrorHandler` is desirable for some and undesirable for others and the same is true for passing to `console.error()`. But `console.error()` was used for a long time and thus it is preferable to keep it as long as a good solution is not found with `ErrorHandler`. Right now it's hard to define a good solution for `ErrorHandler` because: 1. Given the nature of the SW registration errors (usually outside the control of the developer, different error messages on each browser/version, often quite generic error messages, etc.), passing them to the `ErrorHandler` is not particularly helpful. 2. While `ErrorHandler#handleError()` accepts an argument of type `any` (so theoretically we could pass any object without changing the public API), most apps expect an `Error` instance, so many apps could break if we changed the shape. 3. Ideally, the Angular community want to re-think the `ErrorHandler` API and add support for being able to pass additional metadata for each error (such as the source of the error or some identifier, etc.). This change, however, could potentially affect many apps out there, so the community must put some thought into it and design it in a way that accounts for the needs of all packages (not just the SW). 4. Given that we want to more holistically revisit the `ErrorHandler` API, any changes we make in the short term to address the issue just for the SW will make it more difficult/breaky for people to move to a new API in the future. To see the whole explanation see GitHub PR #40236. PR Close #40236
2021-01-18 06:50:28 -05:00
import {ApplicationRef, PLATFORM_ID} from '@angular/core';
import {fakeAsync, flushMicrotasks, TestBed, tick} from '@angular/core/testing';
import {Subject} from 'rxjs';
import {filter, take} from 'rxjs/operators';
import {ServiceWorkerModule, SwRegistrationOptions} from '../src/module';
import {SwUpdate} from '../src/update';
describe('ServiceWorkerModule', () => {
// Skip environments that don't support the minimum APIs needed to run these SW tests.
if ((typeof navigator === 'undefined') || (typeof navigator.serviceWorker === 'undefined')) {
return;
}
let swRegisterSpy: jasmine.Spy;
const untilStable = () => {
const appRef: ApplicationRef = TestBed.inject(ApplicationRef);
return appRef.isStable.pipe(filter(Boolean), take(1)).toPromise();
};
beforeEach(
() => swRegisterSpy =
spyOn(navigator.serviceWorker, 'register').and.returnValue(Promise.resolve(null as any)));
describe('register()', () => {
const configTestBed = async (opts: SwRegistrationOptions) => {
TestBed.configureTestingModule({
imports: [ServiceWorkerModule.register('sw.js', opts)],
fix(service-worker): handle error with console.error (#40236) This commit reverts commit [_fix(service-worker): handle error with ErrorHandler_](https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/39990/commits/552419d). With Angular v11.0.4 and commit [_fix(service-worker): handle error with ErrorHandler_](https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/39990/commits/552419d) Angular start to send all service worker registration errors to the Angular standard `ErrorHandler#handleError()` interface, instead of logging them in the console. But users existing `ErrorHandler#handleError()` implementations are not adapted to service worker registration errors and it might result in broken apps or bad UI. Passing to `ErrorHandler` is desirable for some and undesirable for others and the same is true for passing to `console.error()`. But `console.error()` was used for a long time and thus it is preferable to keep it as long as a good solution is not found with `ErrorHandler`. Right now it's hard to define a good solution for `ErrorHandler` because: 1. Given the nature of the SW registration errors (usually outside the control of the developer, different error messages on each browser/version, often quite generic error messages, etc.), passing them to the `ErrorHandler` is not particularly helpful. 2. While `ErrorHandler#handleError()` accepts an argument of type `any` (so theoretically we could pass any object without changing the public API), most apps expect an `Error` instance, so many apps could break if we changed the shape. 3. Ideally, the Angular community want to re-think the `ErrorHandler` API and add support for being able to pass additional metadata for each error (such as the source of the error or some identifier, etc.). This change, however, could potentially affect many apps out there, so the community must put some thought into it and design it in a way that accounts for the needs of all packages (not just the SW). 4. Given that we want to more holistically revisit the `ErrorHandler` API, any changes we make in the short term to address the issue just for the SW will make it more difficult/breaky for people to move to a new API in the future. To see the whole explanation see GitHub PR #40236. PR Close #40236
2021-01-18 06:50:28 -05:00
providers: [{provide: PLATFORM_ID, useValue: 'browser'}],
});
await untilStable();
};
it('sets the registration options', async () => {
await configTestBed({enabled: true, scope: 'foo'});
expect(TestBed.inject(SwRegistrationOptions)).toEqual({enabled: true, scope: 'foo'});
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: 'foo'});
});
it('can disable the SW', async () => {
await configTestBed({enabled: false});
expect(TestBed.inject(SwUpdate).isEnabled).toBe(false);
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it('can enable the SW', async () => {
await configTestBed({enabled: true});
expect(TestBed.inject(SwUpdate).isEnabled).toBe(true);
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
});
it('defaults to enabling the SW', async () => {
await configTestBed({});
expect(TestBed.inject(SwUpdate).isEnabled).toBe(true);
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
});
it('catches and a logs registration errors', async () => {
fix(service-worker): handle error with console.error (#40236) This commit reverts commit [_fix(service-worker): handle error with ErrorHandler_](https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/39990/commits/552419d). With Angular v11.0.4 and commit [_fix(service-worker): handle error with ErrorHandler_](https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/39990/commits/552419d) Angular start to send all service worker registration errors to the Angular standard `ErrorHandler#handleError()` interface, instead of logging them in the console. But users existing `ErrorHandler#handleError()` implementations are not adapted to service worker registration errors and it might result in broken apps or bad UI. Passing to `ErrorHandler` is desirable for some and undesirable for others and the same is true for passing to `console.error()`. But `console.error()` was used for a long time and thus it is preferable to keep it as long as a good solution is not found with `ErrorHandler`. Right now it's hard to define a good solution for `ErrorHandler` because: 1. Given the nature of the SW registration errors (usually outside the control of the developer, different error messages on each browser/version, often quite generic error messages, etc.), passing them to the `ErrorHandler` is not particularly helpful. 2. While `ErrorHandler#handleError()` accepts an argument of type `any` (so theoretically we could pass any object without changing the public API), most apps expect an `Error` instance, so many apps could break if we changed the shape. 3. Ideally, the Angular community want to re-think the `ErrorHandler` API and add support for being able to pass additional metadata for each error (such as the source of the error or some identifier, etc.). This change, however, could potentially affect many apps out there, so the community must put some thought into it and design it in a way that accounts for the needs of all packages (not just the SW). 4. Given that we want to more holistically revisit the `ErrorHandler` API, any changes we make in the short term to address the issue just for the SW will make it more difficult/breaky for people to move to a new API in the future. To see the whole explanation see GitHub PR #40236. PR Close #40236
2021-01-18 06:50:28 -05:00
const consoleErrorSpy = spyOn(console, 'error');
swRegisterSpy.and.returnValue(Promise.reject('no reason'));
await configTestBed({enabled: true, scope: 'foo'});
fix(service-worker): handle error with console.error (#40236) This commit reverts commit [_fix(service-worker): handle error with ErrorHandler_](https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/39990/commits/552419d). With Angular v11.0.4 and commit [_fix(service-worker): handle error with ErrorHandler_](https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/39990/commits/552419d) Angular start to send all service worker registration errors to the Angular standard `ErrorHandler#handleError()` interface, instead of logging them in the console. But users existing `ErrorHandler#handleError()` implementations are not adapted to service worker registration errors and it might result in broken apps or bad UI. Passing to `ErrorHandler` is desirable for some and undesirable for others and the same is true for passing to `console.error()`. But `console.error()` was used for a long time and thus it is preferable to keep it as long as a good solution is not found with `ErrorHandler`. Right now it's hard to define a good solution for `ErrorHandler` because: 1. Given the nature of the SW registration errors (usually outside the control of the developer, different error messages on each browser/version, often quite generic error messages, etc.), passing them to the `ErrorHandler` is not particularly helpful. 2. While `ErrorHandler#handleError()` accepts an argument of type `any` (so theoretically we could pass any object without changing the public API), most apps expect an `Error` instance, so many apps could break if we changed the shape. 3. Ideally, the Angular community want to re-think the `ErrorHandler` API and add support for being able to pass additional metadata for each error (such as the source of the error or some identifier, etc.). This change, however, could potentially affect many apps out there, so the community must put some thought into it and design it in a way that accounts for the needs of all packages (not just the SW). 4. Given that we want to more holistically revisit the `ErrorHandler` API, any changes we make in the short term to address the issue just for the SW will make it more difficult/breaky for people to move to a new API in the future. To see the whole explanation see GitHub PR #40236. PR Close #40236
2021-01-18 06:50:28 -05:00
expect(consoleErrorSpy)
.toHaveBeenCalledWith('Service worker registration failed with:', 'no reason');
});
});
describe('SwRegistrationOptions', () => {
const configTestBed =
(providerOpts: SwRegistrationOptions, staticOpts?: SwRegistrationOptions) => {
TestBed.configureTestingModule({
imports: [ServiceWorkerModule.register('sw.js', staticOpts || {scope: 'static'})],
providers: [
{provide: PLATFORM_ID, useValue: 'browser'},
{provide: SwRegistrationOptions, useFactory: () => providerOpts},
],
});
};
it('sets the registration options (and overwrites those set via `.register()`', async () => {
configTestBed({enabled: true, scope: 'provider'});
await untilStable();
expect(TestBed.inject(SwRegistrationOptions)).toEqual({enabled: true, scope: 'provider'});
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: 'provider'});
});
it('can disable the SW', async () => {
configTestBed({enabled: false}, {enabled: true});
await untilStable();
expect(TestBed.inject(SwUpdate).isEnabled).toBe(false);
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it('can enable the SW', async () => {
configTestBed({enabled: true}, {enabled: false});
await untilStable();
expect(TestBed.inject(SwUpdate).isEnabled).toBe(true);
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
});
it('defaults to enabling the SW', async () => {
configTestBed({}, {enabled: false});
await untilStable();
expect(TestBed.inject(SwUpdate).isEnabled).toBe(true);
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
});
describe('registrationStrategy', () => {
const configTestBedWithMockedStability =
(strategy?: SwRegistrationOptions['registrationStrategy']) => {
const isStableSub = new Subject<boolean>();
TestBed.configureTestingModule({
imports: [ServiceWorkerModule.register('sw.js')],
providers: [
{provide: ApplicationRef, useValue: {isStable: isStableSub.asObservable()}},
{provide: PLATFORM_ID, useValue: 'browser'},
{
provide: SwRegistrationOptions,
useFactory: () => ({registrationStrategy: strategy})
},
],
});
// Dummy `inject()` call to initialize the test "app".
TestBed.inject(ApplicationRef);
return isStableSub;
};
it('defaults to registering the SW when the app stabilizes (under 30s)', fakeAsync(() => {
const isStableSub = configTestBedWithMockedStability();
isStableSub.next(false);
isStableSub.next(false);
tick();
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
tick(20000);
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
isStableSub.next(true);
tick();
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('defaults to registering the SW after 30s if the app does not stabilize sooner',
fakeAsync(() => {
const isStableSub = configTestBedWithMockedStability();
tick(29999);
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
tick(1);
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('registers the SW when the app stabilizes with `registerWhenStable:<timeout>`',
fakeAsync(() => {
const isStableSub = configTestBedWithMockedStability('registerWhenStable:1000');
isStableSub.next(false);
isStableSub.next(false);
tick();
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
tick(500);
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
isStableSub.next(true);
tick();
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('registers the SW after `timeout` if the app does not stabilize with `registerWhenStable:<timeout>`',
fakeAsync(() => {
configTestBedWithMockedStability('registerWhenStable:1000');
tick(999);
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
tick(1);
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('registers the SW asap (asynchronously) before the app stabilizes with `registerWhenStable:0`',
fakeAsync(() => {
const isStableSub = configTestBedWithMockedStability('registerWhenStable:0');
// Create a microtask.
Promise.resolve();
flushMicrotasks();
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
tick(0);
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('registers the SW only when the app stabilizes with `registerWhenStable:`',
fakeAsync(() => {
const isStableSub = configTestBedWithMockedStability('registerWhenStable:');
isStableSub.next(false);
isStableSub.next(false);
tick();
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
tick(60000);
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
isStableSub.next(true);
tick();
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('registers the SW only when the app stabilizes with `registerWhenStable`',
fakeAsync(() => {
const isStableSub = configTestBedWithMockedStability('registerWhenStable');
isStableSub.next(false);
isStableSub.next(false);
tick();
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
tick(60000);
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
isStableSub.next(true);
tick();
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('registers the SW immediatelly (synchronously) with `registerImmediately`', () => {
configTestBedWithMockedStability('registerImmediately');
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
});
it('registers the SW after the specified delay with `registerWithDelay:<delay>`',
fakeAsync(() => {
configTestBedWithMockedStability('registerWithDelay:100000');
tick(99999);
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
tick(1);
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('registers the SW asap (asynchronously) with `registerWithDelay:`', fakeAsync(() => {
configTestBedWithMockedStability('registerWithDelay:');
// Create a microtask.
Promise.resolve();
flushMicrotasks();
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
tick(0);
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('registers the SW asap (asynchronously) with `registerWithDelay`', fakeAsync(() => {
configTestBedWithMockedStability('registerWithDelay');
// Create a microtask.
Promise.resolve();
flushMicrotasks();
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
tick(0);
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('registers the SW on first emitted value with observable factory function',
fakeAsync(() => {
const registerSub = new Subject<void>();
const isStableSub = configTestBedWithMockedStability(() => registerSub.asObservable());
isStableSub.next(true);
tick();
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
registerSub.next();
expect(swRegisterSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith('sw.js', {scope: undefined});
}));
it('throws an error with unknown strategy', () => {
expect(() => configTestBedWithMockedStability('registerYesterday'))
.toThrowError('Unknown ServiceWorker registration strategy: registerYesterday');
expect(swRegisterSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
});
});
});