tests - integration/separation (`token` and `none` methods)

[briantist]

SUMMARY

Originally I thought I'd be able to separate out all of the auth methods but it was a bigger job than expected, so this PR is moving none and token methods.

• Auth methods' authenticate method now expected to return full response, not just the token
• token method is special (no actual login happening) since we may not have full response; if we're looking up the token anyway (we usually are), use to it to simulate full login response
• add .ansible-lint file for integration tests. We're not running ansible-lint in CI (yet?) but my IDE's ansible plugin is using it, may affect others as well. Nice to have.
• move token auth to its own integration target
• remove token auth tests from hashi_vault tests
• many "token" tests were actually specific to the hashi_vault lookup itself; move those tests to their own file within the hashi_vault target. They are important tests of the plugin's functionality. Eventually, they will be among the only tests remaining there!
• update/add to the dedicated CI/test plugins
• add a policy to the test vault server that allows read access to a path that isn't populated, so that we can more properly test the code path that checks for a non-existent path (without the policy, we are given access denied instead)
• add unit tests for auth none
• add unit tests for auth token

ISSUE TYPE

• Tests/CI

COMPONENT NAME

tests/

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

N/A

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #128 (8459d0b) into main (c912bf7) will increase coverage by 2.20%. The diff coverage is 95.05%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #128      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.76%   87.97%   +2.20%     
==========================================
  Files          29       32       +3     
  Lines        1082     1247     +165     
  Branches       83       95      +12     
==========================================
+ Hits          928     1097     +169     
+ Misses        141      139       -2     
+ Partials       13       11       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
env_docker-default	87.97% <95.05%> (+2.20%)	:arrow_up:
integration	72.17% <74.19%> (+0.36%)	:arrow_up:
py2.6	35.02% <32.41%> (-36.78%)	:arrow_down:
py2.7	79.95% <83.51%> (+1.57%)	:arrow_up:
py3.10	86.84% <91.75%> (+1.82%)	:arrow_up:
py3.5	80.27% <83.51%> (+1.52%)	:arrow_up:
py3.6	80.27% <83.51%> (+1.52%)	:arrow_up:
py3.7	80.27% <83.51%> (+1.52%)	:arrow_up:
py3.8	86.84% <91.75%> (+1.82%)	:arrow_up:
py3.9	86.84% <91.75%> (+1.82%)	:arrow_up:
target_auth_none	100.00% <ø> (ø)
target_auth_token	73.33% <83.33%> (?)
target_connection_options	73.78% <ø> (ø)
target_controller	67.67% <41.02%> (-0.32%)	:arrow_down:
target_lookup_hashi_vault	78.75% <ø> (ø)
target_module_utils	85.22% <90.10%> (+3.62%)	:arrow_up:
units	84.36% <93.40%> (+3.30%)	:arrow_up:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
plugins/module_utils/_auth_method_aws_iam_login.py	21.56% <0.00%> (ø)
plugins/module_utils/_auth_method_ldap.py	57.89% <0.00%> (ø)
plugins/module_utils/_auth_method_userpass.py	52.38% <0.00%> (+2.38%)	:arrow_up:
plugins/module_utils/_authenticator.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...it/plugins/module_utils/authentication/conftest.py	92.00% <84.61%> (-8.00%)	:arrow_down:
plugins/module_utils/_auth_method_token.py	97.77% <95.83%> (+29.77%)	:arrow_up:
plugins/module_utils/_auth_method_approle.py	89.47% <100.00%> (ø)
plugins/module_utils/_auth_method_jwt.py	91.30% <100.00%> (-0.37%)	:arrow_down:
tests/unit/conftest.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...gins/module_utils/authentication/test_auth_none.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 7 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update c912bf7...8459d0b. Read the comment docs.

[webknjaz]

Mind filling out the PR template form?

[briantist]

Mind filling out the PR template form?

@webknjaz What information are you looking for that's needed for a tests/internals-only PR?

[webknjaz]

Mind filling out the PR template form?

@webknjaz What information are you looking for that's needed for a tests/internals-only PR?

[briantist]

Mind filling out the PR template form?

@webknjaz What information are you looking for that's needed for a tests/internals-only PR?

There is no issue type at the moment that applies. I've thought about creating one in the collection for test and CI updates (as I do a lot of them!).

No public components are changed in this PR.

Is there something you would prefer to see in "additional information"?

I'm open to changes here, but a screenshot of empty fields is not really telling me what you want to see. I could delete the headings if that's preferable?

---

That aside, thank you for the thorough review, I'm going to apply most of your suggestions; much appreciated!

[webknjaz]

For the issue type, I usually just modify one of the options to be more precise (like Testing Pull Request or Maintenance Pull Request). The component name could be a subpath in the repo. Like tests/ and plugins/module_utils/. And additional info could be N/A.

This all would just make the PR description look way better.

[briantist]

Thanks @webknjaz , I've updated the issue description and I believe I've addressed all your concerns. I've removed the problematic check_import function and I'll look at better ways to handle that n the future if needed.