invalid merge patch

[omursahin]

   /**
    * Calls:
    * 1 - (201) POST:/api/mergepatch/buggy
    * 2 - (200) GET:/api/mergepatch/buggy/{id}
    * 3 - (200) PATCH:/api/mergepatch/buggy/{id}
    * 4 - (200) GET:/api/mergepatch/buggy/{id}
    * Found 1 potential fault of type-code 922
    */
    @Test @Timeout(60)
    fun test_10_getOnBuggiInvalidMergePatch()  {
        
        val dto_MergePatchResource_1 = MergePatchResource()
        dto_MergePatchResource_1.setValue(526)
        
        val res_0: ValidatableResponse = given().accept("*/*")
                .header("x-EMextraHeader123", "")
                .contentType("application/json")
                .body(dto_MergePatchResource_1)
                .post("${baseUrlOfSut}/api/mergepatch/buggy")
                .then()
                .statusCode(201)
                .assertThat()
                .contentType("application/json")
                .body("'name'", nullValue())
                .body("'value'", numberMatches(526))
        val location_buggy__2 = res_0.extract().header("location")
        assertTrue(isValidURIorEmpty(location_buggy__2));
        
        given().accept("*/*")
                .header("x-EMextraHeader123", "")
                .get(resolveLocation(location_buggy__2, baseUrlOfSut + "/api/mergepatch/buggy/856"))
                .then()
                .statusCode(200)
                .assertThat()
                .contentType("application/json")
                .body("'name'", nullValue())
                .body("'value'", numberMatches(526))
        
        // Fault922. JSON Merge Patch changes untouched fields.
        val dto_MergeRequest_4 = MergeRequest()
        
        given().accept("*/*")
                .header("x-EMextraHeader123", "")
                .contentType("application/merge-patch+json")
                .body(dto_MergeRequest_4)
                .patch(resolveLocation(location_buggy__2, baseUrlOfSut + "/api/mergepatch/buggy/856?EMextraParam123=42"))
                .then()
                .statusCode(200)
                .assertThat()
                .contentType("application/json")
                .body("'name'", nullValue())
                .body("'value'", nullValue())
        
        given().accept("*/*")
                .header("x-EMextraHeader123", "")
                .get(resolveLocation(location_buggy__2, baseUrlOfSut + "/api/mergepatch/buggy/856"))
                .then()
                .statusCode(200)
                .assertThat()
                .contentType("application/json")
                .body("'name'", nullValue())
                .body("'value'", nullValue())
    }
    

[arcuri82]

here you should explicitly check for application/merge-patch+json or application/json. other formats such as application/json-patch+json would be wrong, and so cannot just use isJson()

[arcuri82]

can add the following comment:
If there are flaky fields, eg, timestamps, there could be a different value between the 2 GETs, regardless of the PATCH. However, we are only looking at the fields of PATCH. it would be weird to set a value with a PATCH that the API can change on a whim... not impossible, but most likely very unlikely. so, in theory field flakiness should not be a problem here

[arcuri82]

are we checking this for every possible candidate? or shouldn't we break as soon as we get one that works?

[omursahin]

@arcuri82 It checks every possible solution. We can return early if we find a fault, if you want, but it can also be valuable to report different combinations of the fault. What do you think?

[arcuri82]

are we differentiating these potential different cases in the fitness function using the context for the detected faults? if not, then it is no point, as anyway any other new test would be discarded in archive as not improving fitness

[omursahin]

No, you are right. It will not improve fitness.

[arcuri82]

are we differentiating these potential different cases in the fitness function using the context for the detected faults? if not, then it is no point, as anyway any other new test would be discarded in archive as not improving fitness