willmorgan / stub-azure-function-context Goto Github PK

Hi,

consider having a function that makes a call to an external database such as Cosmos DB. In the business logic I plan to have an abstract database class for which I can build my own in-memory implementation for testing.

When I run a test the function needs to know if it should use CosmosDB as backend or the in-memory implementation for testing.

My idea was to evaluate "context.state.testing" for this, however I don't seem to be able to set this.

Currently the functionRunner has a return type of Promise<any>.
This results in a few typescript-eslint errors:

Assigning result :

Trying to type with Promise<Context> :

For now we've got around this by adding an overload to our project:

import * as stubAzureFunctionContext from 'stub-azure-function-context';

declare module 'stub-azure-function-context' {
  export function functionRunner(
    azFunction: AzureFunction,
    bindingDefinitions?: stubAzureFunctionContext.BindingDefinition[] | string,
    bindingData?: Record<string, stubAzureFunctionContext.Binding>,
    augmentContext?: stubAzureFunctionContext.AugmentContextCallback,
  ): Promise<Context>;
}

It'd be ideal if the type were narrowed in the package itself. Is there a reason it's currently any? Is Context a sufficient type?

Struggling to work out how to pass routing parameters, any chance of a documentation update to show this?

Did anyone get a chance to try this with the new Azure Functions version?

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/azure/azure-functions/functions-node-upgrade-v4?tabs=azure-cli-set-indexing-flag%2Cv4
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/functions-reference-node?tabs=javascript%2Clinux%2Cazure-cli&pivots=nodejs-model-v4

First, appreciate the time you guys spent to craft this. Very thorough implementation of Azure protocol.

I'm probably missing something but specifying binding definitions in the test file seems redundant to me. Since I'm testing some function I really want binding definitions to be the same as in the function.json because that's how Azure runtime will invoke my function.

The question is: what's the valid scenario where I may want to override binding definitions configured in function.json? I'm thinking about adding a little helper which would parse and load relevant bits from the config file, so that a user only needs to provide a trigger object.

As I see it, this library currently only supports a limited set of bindings listed at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/functions-triggers-bindings?tabs=csharp#supported-bindings. Are there any plans of including more, or is there some documentation you guys could provide so I myself can look into how feasible it is to create a PR?

I'm specially interested in the IoT Hub binding ...

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/functions-bindings-http-webhook-trigger?tabs=python-v2%2Cin-process%2Cfunctionsv2&pivots=programming-language-javascript#customize-the-http-endpoint

  {
      "bindings": [
      {
          "type": "httpTrigger",
          "name": "req",
          "direction": "in",
          "methods": [ "get" ],
          "route": "products/{category:alpha}/{id:int?}"
      },
      {
          "type": "http",
          "name": "res",
          "direction": "out"
      }
      ]
  }

  module.exports = async function (context, req) {
  
      var category = context.bindingData.category;
      var id = context.bindingData.id;
      var message = `Category: ${category}, ID: ${id}`;
  
      context.res = {
          body: message;
      }
  }

I've got simular code as in the link above but using functionRunner context.bindingData.id; remains undefined. is this supported in the lib ? It was working in the prevous version ?