Chameth.com - posts like android-espresso-spoon, travel-toolkit but not sense-api, why-you-should-be-using-https

Building a travel toolkit

2025-01-02T00:00:00Z

The container for my toolkit, a UGREEN “travel accessories” bag

For a while now, whenever I’ve traveled anywhere I’ve dumped a selection of tools into my backpack just in case I need them. Originally this was mostly focused around being able to open and fix my laptop if anything went wrong, but over time has slowly expanded to include other useful tools.

Repeatedly packing these tools and then returning them to where they belonged was tedious, though. I couldn’t just leave them in the backpack as I often needed them for non-travelling purposes, and I didn’t want to just buy duplicate tools that spent most of their life a few meters away from each other, so I ignored the problem and just dealt with the tedium.

Eventually I acquired enough tools that — while not quite duplicates — I wouldn’t miss often if they were kept in the backpack. Building on these I’ve created a little travel toolkit that contains everything I might want (and more) while away.

The base

The biggest challenge I had before was finding a screwdriver set. I have an iFixit Mako set that did the in-and-out-of-the-bag routine for several years. Nothing else covered the range of drivers I wanted for generic electronic tinkering and more chunky work. I finally found one in the form of a Wera Tool-Check PLUS TR-Edition. “TR” stands for “Tool Rebel” and is Wera’s “fan club” brand. Its signature features over the normal Tool-Check PLUS are a fancy fabric case and a 152mm bit extender; but it also comes with a much different set of bits, which is why I picked it up.

Here’s a comparison

Type	Standard version	Tool Rebel edition
Phillips	2x PH1 3x PH2 1x PH3	1x PH00 1x PH0 1x PH1 1x PH2 1x PH3
Pozidrive	None	1x PZ1 3x PZ2
Slotted	1x 5.5mm	1x 4mm 1x 4.5mm 2x 5.5mm 1x 6.5mm
Torx	1x T10 1x T15 1x T20 1x T25 1x T30 1x T40	1x T10 1x T15 1x T20 1x T25 1x T30 1x T40
Security Torx	1x T10 1x T15 1x T20 1x T25 1x T30	1x T25
Hex	1x H3 1x H4 1x H5 1x H6 1x H8	1x H1.5 1x H2 1x H2.5 1x H3 1x H4 1x H6 1x H8

There are only five bits present in the standard version that are missing in the TR edition: 5mm hex (pretty uncommon) and four sizes of security torx (rare). In exchange for those and the removal of a bunch of duplicates, you get two extra phillips sizes (0 and 00, both very useful for electronics and spectacles), some pozidrive bits (extremely common on random hardware/furniture/etc), smaller hex bits (for electronics, 3D printers, and so on), and a few other bits and pieces.

Overall it’s a vastly superior selection for my needs. And while it doesn’t have the full range of bits provided by the iFixit kit, it does cover almost everything I’m ever actually likely to need while travelling, and it’s probably around a third of the size.

The other core part of the toolkit is the bag. I had a UGREEN “travel accessory” bag hanging around unused, and noticed it was almost the exact right size for the Tool-Check. Now, how many other tools could I stuff in there?

All the tools

The array of tools that make up the travel toolkit

The kit can be broken down into a few sections:

Screwdriving

The aforementioned Wera Tool-Check
Its 152mm bit extender

I’ve talked enough about this already, I think, so I’ll spare you any additional commentary on screwdrivers and bits.

Splitting, gripping and cutting

Engineer tweezers
Engineer mini snips
Engineer mini screw removal pliers
Knipex mini waterpump pliers
Two iFixit spudgers (one metal, one plastic)
iFixit jimmy

I have bigger or slightly different versions of these that stay in my normal toolkit. The tweezers and snips are useful in a variety of situations, and the spudgers are handy for getting inside laptops and other devices. The pliers are less useful, but they’re one of those things where when you do need them there aren’t any good alternatives.

Sewing

Two needles
Some black thread
Set of mini clips

You never know when you’re going to rip a seam in something. I find the clips a lot less fiddly than using pins for keeping material in place when I’m trying to sew.

Computering

Retractable ethernet cable
RJ45 coupler
USB-C to RJ45 adapter
Dual USB-A and USB-C thumb drive, with an Arch ISO on it

Sometimes Wi-Fi just doesn’t cut it, or you need to fiddle with a router that doesn’t expose its admin UI over Wi-Fi. The USB-C adapter is for use with my phone, as it’s often easier to move that get the laptop where it needs to be.

I can boot from the thumb drive into an Arch environment, and from there reinstall my laptop from scratch if needed. There’s enough space left over so it can be used to transfer files as well.

Miscellaneousing

Fabric tape measure
Spirit level
Sharpie
Superglue
Spare batteries: 2 CR2032s, 2 AA, 2 AAA

I’m almost certain I won’t use the spirit level, but it’s tiny and I had a spare so it went in. Everything else is just in the “generally handy to have” category.

Putting it all together

The nicely-organised side of the toolkit

The Tool-Check PLUS fits almost perfectly into one side of the UGREEN bag, leaving a little wiggle room along the side for the longer parts like spudgers. The middle pockets can’t fit much in, but keep the batteries and sewing bits out of the way. Everything else is in a big zip-up compartment in the other side, which is slightly messy but still easy enough to dig through to find whatever I need.

The complete kit weighs in at around 1.2KG, so it’s not exactly lightweight, but it goes in a bag with a heavy laptop and all of its peripherals so it’s not as noticeable as it might otherwise be.

It remains to be seen how much use I’ll actually get out of any of this. Maybe I’ll put a bit of paper in so that I can track how often I use each tool…

Android testing with Espresso and Spoon

2017-05-16T00:00:00Z

I’ve been spending some time recently setting up automated testing for our collection of Android apps and libraries at work. We have a mixture of unit tests, integration tests, and UI tests for most projects, and getting them all to run reliably and automatically has posed some interesting challenges.

Running tests on multiple devices using Spoon

Spoon is a tool developed by Square that handles distributing instrumentation tests to multiple connected devices, aggregating the results, and making reports.

As part of our continuous integration we build both application and test APKs, and these are pushed to the build server as build artefacts. A separate build job then pulls these artefacts down to a Mac Mini we have in the office, and executes Spoon with a few arguments:

java -jar spoon-runner.jar \
    --apk application.apk \
    --test-apk applicationTests.apk \
    --fail-on-failure \
    --fail-if-no-device-connected

Spoon finds all devices, deploys both APKs on them, and then begins the instrumentation tests. We use two physical devices and an emulator to cover the form factors and API versions that are important to us; if any test fails on any of those devices, Spoon will return an error code and the build will fail.

For library projects, you only have a single APK containing both the tests and the library itself. The current version of Spoon requires both --apk and --test-apk to be specified, so we simply pass in the same APK to both. It looks like future versions of Spoon will be more flexible in this regard.

Spoon produces HTML reports, showing the status of each test run on each device. We have the report output folder collected as a build artefact, so the reports can be seen right from the build server:

Spoon output summary, showing results of 171 tests run on 3 devices

Flake-free UI testing with Espresso

Espresso is an Android library that provides an API for interacting with and making assertions about the UI of Android applications. Espresso has a very simple interface, and does lots of clever things under the hood to ensure that your tests only execute code when the UI is idle (and hence stable). You shouldn’t ever need to make your code sleep or wait.

In order for Espresso’s magic to work, it needs to know whenever some background activity is going on that it needs to wait for. By default, it hooks in to Android’s AsyncTask executor so it can wait for those to finish. In our apps, there were a few cases where we used an explicit Thread to do some background work, which caused tests to fail intermittently (depending on whether the thread performed its UI update before or after Espresso executed the test code). Rewriting these cases to use an AsyncTask enabled Espresso to figure out what was happening and the tests started passing reliably.

Another, similar, problem occurred where we were using RxJava to load some data. There are two possible ways to deal with this… Espresso has a concept of an idling resource, which provides a way of telling Espresso when a resource is busy so it can belay interacting with or testing the UI until the resource is finished. In our case, the code in question was going to be rewritten soon, so we went for a quicker and dirtier option: force RxJava to use the same executor as AsyncTask.

To do this, we added a simple test utility class that registers an RxJavaPlugin that overrides the Schedulers used by Rx:

/**
 * Hooks in to the RxJava plugins API to force Rx work to be scheduled on the
 * AsyncTask's thread pool executor. This is a quick and dirty hack to make
 * Espresso aware of when Rx is doing work (and wait for it).
 */
public final class RxSchedulerHook {

    private static final RxJavaSchedulersHook javaHook =
            new RxJavaTestSchedulerHook();

    private RxSchedulerHook() {
        // Should not be insantiated
    }

    public static void registerHooksForTesting() {
        if (RxJavaPlugins.getInstance().getSchedulersHook() != javaHook) {
            RxJavaPlugins.getInstance().reset();
            RxJavaPlugins.getInstance().registerSchedulersHook(javaHook);
        }
    }

    private static class RxJavaTestSchedulerHook extends RxJavaSchedulersHook {
        @Override
        public Scheduler getComputationScheduler() {
            return Schedulers.from(AsyncTask.THREAD_POOL_EXECUTOR);
        }

        @Override
        public Scheduler getIOScheduler() {
            return Schedulers.from(AsyncTask.THREAD_POOL_EXECUTOR);
        }

        @Override
        public Scheduler getNewThreadScheduler() {
            return Schedulers.from(AsyncTask.THREAD_POOL_EXECUTOR);
        }
    }
}

With the hook registered Rx does all of its work on the same thread pool as AsyncTask, which Espresso already knows about. It’s not the best long-term solution, but it means we don’t have to spend time integrating IdlingResource for code that doesn’t have long to live. With the hook in place, the tests that were flaking because of Rx started passing reliably as well.

Getting automatic screenshots of failures

Spoon provides a client library to, among other things, take a screenshot of the device. Espresso provides a hook that can be used to change how errors are handled. Putting the two together is very simple:

final FailureHandler defaultHandler =
        new DefaultFailureHandler(
                InstrumentationRegistry.getTargetContext());

Espresso.setFailureHandler(new FailureHandler() {
    @Override
    public void handle(Throwable throwable, Matcher<View> matcher) {
        try {
            Spoon.screenshot(
                    getActivity(),
                    "espresso-failure",
                    description.getClassName(),
                    description.getMethodName());
        } catch (Exception ex) {
            Log.e(TAG, "Error capturing screenshot", ex);
        }
        defaultHandler.handle(throwable, matcher);
    }
});

In our new error handler we simply ask Spoon to take a screenshot, then call Espresso’s original handler so that it can output its debugging information and fail the test. The Spoon runner automatically picks up the screenshot and adds it to the report:

Spoon output details, showing a screenshot captured of the failure

Having the screenshot, error message and logs all presented in a clean UI makes debugging failures much, much easier than searching through a huge build log to try and find the exception.

Filtering tests based on device capabilities

Some tests won’t work on every device you throw at them. We had two problems: some tests require a higher API version than some of our devices, and some of the UIs under test were designed to run only on certain resolutions.

The main cause for our dependence on newer API versions was the use of WireMock, a brilliant library for stubbing out web services. WireMock requires API 19, while our physical devices tend to run versions older than that. Stopping these tests running is simply a case of applying an annotation to the class:

@SdkSuppress(minSdkVersion=19)

Screen resolution is a bit more complicated. One of our apps is designed for a specific tablet device (and will never be used on anything else), and trying to render the UI on smaller screens results in items overlapping, important parts ending up below the fold, and other problems.

We’d still like all the other tests for that app to run on all of the devices, though, so we can test them on a variety of API versions and in other conditions. We just need to suppress the UI tests. To do this, we subclassed the Android ActivityTestRule and overrode the apply method:

@Override
public Statement apply(Statement base, final Description description) {
    if (!canRunUiTests(InstrumentationRegistry.getContext())) {
        // If we can't run UI tests, then return a statement that does nothing
        // at all.  With normal JUnit tests we'd just throw an assumption
        // failure and the test would be ignored, but that makes the Android
        // runner angry.
        return new Statement() {
            @Override
            public void evaluate() throws Throwable {
                // Do nothing
            }
        };
    }

    return super.apply(base, description);
}

/**
 * Checks that the screen size is close enough to that of our tablet device.
 */
@TargetApi(Build.VERSION_CODES.HONEYCOMB_MR2)
private boolean canRunUiTests(Context context) {
    if (Build.VERSION.SDK_INT < Build.VERSION_CODES.HONEYCOMB_MR2) {
        return false;
    }
    int screenWidth = dpToPx(context,
            context.getResources().getConfiguration().screenWidthDp);
    return screenWidth >= 600;
}

private int dpToPx(Context context, int dp) {
    DisplayMetrics displayMetrics = context.getResources().getDisplayMetrics();
    return Math.round(dp * displayMetrics.density);
}

When the rule is run, we check if the screen width meets a minimum number of pixels. If it doesn’t, an empty Statement is returned that turns the test into a no-op. These show up as passed rather than skipped in the output, but there doesn’t seem to be a nice way to signal to the Android JUnit runner that the test is being ignored programatically.