[gui77aume]

If you are testing a microservices "ball of mud", you can (and probably should) setup a testing environment and do your integration tests right there, against real dependencies. The tool seems nice for simple dependencies and local testing but I fail to see it as a game changer.

[root_axis]

> and local testing

You mention this as an afterthought but that's the critical feature. Giving developers the ability to run integration tests locally is a massive win in a "ball of mud" environment. There are other ways to accomplish this locally, but the test-infrastructure-as-test-code approach is a powerful and conceptually elegant abstraction, especially when used as a tool to design testcontainers for your own services that can be imported as packages into dependent services.

[TeeWEE]

This is useful too but expensive.

Test containers provide a middle ground.

For example we have pure unit tests. But also some tests that boot up Postgres. Test the db migration and gives you a db to play with for your specific “unit” test test case.

No need for a complete environment with Kafka etc. It provides a cost effective stepping stone to what you describe.

What would be nice if test containers could create a complete environment, on the test machine and delete it again.

Still a deploy with some smoke tests on a real env are nice.

[AdrenalinMd]

It's not really a middle ground if you're not testing your service in the same conditions as in production environment.

If you're not testing integration with Kafka, and the producer, your service is still lacking integration tests.

Testing classes in isolation with testcontainer is fine. But I observed that with microservice architecture the line between E2E tests and integration tests are blurred.

Microservices can and should be tested from the client perspective.

[TeeWEE]

True but if you want to test every merge-request it becomes expensive.

We had a customer k8s cluster per feature branch with e2e testing.

A middle ground is testcontainers for feature branches, and the trunk branch a full e2e suite deployed to a live cluster...

[user_of_the_wek]

In my last project we used https://java.testcontainers.org/modules/kafka/ to start a small Kafka container. It's not the exactly like a production installation, but it goes a long way.

[AdrenalinMd]

I agree with this. At work we use both approaches but at different levels of the test pyramid.

To test integration with 1 dependency at class level we can use test containers.

But to test the integration of the whole microservice with other microservices + dependencies we use a test environment and some test code. It's a bit like an E2E test for an API.

I would argue that the test environment is more useful if I had to choose between the two as it can test the service contract fully, unlike lower type testing which requires a lot of mocking.

[circusfly]

Agreed, this is the best way, testcontainers are over hyped.

[silon42]

Yeah, I prefer setting up docker-compose.yml myself, so I can startup services once, and also do manual testing.

The only thing I would maybe use testcontainers for is to deploy my own service into docker as part of integration test so I can test a more realistic deployment scenario instead of running it locally outside docker.

[likis]

I very strongly disagree. Having "integration" tests are super powerful, you should be able to test against your interfaces/contracts and not have to spin up an entire environment with all of your hundreds of microservces, building "integrated" tests that are then dependant on the current correctness of the other microservices.

I advocate for not having any integrated environment for automated testing at all. The aim should be to be able to run all tests locally and get a quicker feedback loop.