Detecting when you’re in IntelliJ

How do you make your tests aware if you’re running them from your IDE or not? That’s what I’ve been wrestling with, and there were some surprising results, so I thought it would be worth sharing.

But first of all, why on earth would you ever care?

When I joined the team at Unruly, we had a suite of acceptance tests for our
exchange, each of which called main() at the beginning of the test so we had something to test against. That meant we could just invoke the test from within IntelliJ, debug the exchange from a test, etc. Everything was nice and convenient.

Some things, however, were too convenient. As we were starting the exchange
programmatically, we could do things like inject test doubles, replace statics,
and generally fool around with the guts of the exchange. We weren’t just invoking main(), we were constructing a test exchange and starting that.
This meant that our acceptance tests weren’t really acceptance tests — and that isn’t just a semantic argument.

On more than one occasion, we broke application startup. Because our tests didn’t actually start the exchange, not in the way we did in production, we only discovered that when a botched deploy left us without a service in production.

Test Against What You’re Going To Deploy

So we changed things. We removed the various injections and dependencies, stubbing out behaviour at the edges rather than shoving mocks into internals, and got to the point where we could run the exchange and its tests in different processes. That way, we were actually testing against the exchange we were deploying, instead of a jumble of exchange components.

Then we codified that, by removing the ability of tests to start the exchange.
The only way to run the acceptance tests was to already have an exchange started and ready to run against. Doing this with a single instance of the exchange for the entire AT run (as opposed to a fresh one for each test class) also forced us to clean up some accidental dependencies on initial state.

Not only was this more principled, giving us better, more meaningful coverage, it was also faster. The relatively expensive startup was being done once, instead of dozens of times (once per acceptance test class). The gain wasn’t quite as large as I’d hoped for, but it was noticeable.

Sounds like a pure win, right? Well, except for the experience in the IDE.

Frictionless Feedback is Important

In order to run tests in the IDE, you had to remember to start the exchange first. If you changed code, you had to remember to restart it. In order to debug, you had to juggle in your head which process to restart (the tests? or the exchange?), and in order to build and deploy, you also had to remember to stop the exchange.

Even when you remembered, it was just fiddlier. A few extra clicks, a requirement to use the mouse instead of the keyboard.

Robust or Frictionless? Why not both?

The fast-feedback loop of everyday development was worse. It was easy to under-estimate the impact that had. Also, the additional robustness and performance of the build script meant we didn’t necessarily need it in the IDE.

So what if we ran the tests against an exchange in a different process in the
full deploy script, but when we’re in the IDE we start up the exchange in the
same process?

That requires two things: making the tests toggle-able as to whether they start
the exchange or not, and passing the toggle in. Surprisingly, the hard part was
the latter.

-DstartExchange=true

The first idea was to pass in a system property when running ATs from Maven.
If the property is set, the tests are being invoked from a Maven build, so don’t
start the exchange. Otherwise, do.

I was very surprised when that didn’t work: the property was being set even when running tests in IntelliJ. It turns out that IntelliJ looks at the Maven config, and applies any command-line arguments to test targets when running tests.

Thanks, IntelliJ! That was some help I didn’t need or want.

As a result, I can’t distinguish from where the tests are being run via arguments provided in the Maven script.

Run configurations

The second idea would be to pass in a system property when running the ATs from IntelliJ, with custom run configurations. It’s easy to edit configurations to pass in an argument, and Maven is unaware of them. It’s also easy to share and check them in, so it’s not something you need to think about when setting up a dev environment.

Of course, we don’t just use a pre-existing run configuration: sometimes we’ll run “all tests”, but then sometimes we’ll run “only this case which just failed”, or “only this case I just wrote”. That’s fine — you can edit a default configuration, and then any new JUnit configuration will inherit that.

But you can’t share and check in a default configuration.

Which means that you have ATs working in the IDE, until they don’t, and it’s totally unclear as to what the difference is between this case running by itself
and as part of a suite.

Something totally horrible

The third idea was a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea. What if I just
looked in the system properties to see if, y’know, maybe there’s something there that tells me this is being run from IntelliJ?

And there was. The sun.java.command property is set to com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.JUnitStarter <…various settings…> when run from IntelliJ. So that gives me my function:


private static boolean isRunningInIntelliJ() {
return System.getProperty(“sun.java.command”,“”)
.contains(“intellij”);
}

Let me repeat: I know this is horrible. It’s fragile — I have no reassurance that this will continue to work in future versions of IntelliJ, and I’m certain it won’t work from Eclipse.

But sometimes, in the absence of a principled way of solving a problem, all you have are hacks. After all: it works, and if the alternative is either a loss of
robustness or frictionlessness, then you’re better off swallowing your pride and embracing the hack.

But if anyone knows a nice, principled way of doing this, please: let me know.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.