package catalogue

import (
	"strings"
	"testing"
)

// A provision names what the consumer is coupled to (novox/hq ADR 0027).
//
// The fault this defends against does not look like a fault: resolution succeeds, the module
// deploys, and the first query fails somewhere else entirely. Every earlier test had exactly one
// provider of each name, so no mismatch was expressible and none was caught.
func TestAModuleMayNotProvideAGenericDatabase(t *testing.T) {
	for _, hidden := range []string{"database", "db", "sql", "sql-database"} {
		_, err := ParseManifest([]byte(`{"module":"postgres","version":"1",
			"provides":[{"name":"` + hidden + `","scope":"mesh"}]}`))
		if err == nil {
			t.Fatalf("providing %q was accepted; a requirement for it matches any engine", hidden)
		}
		for _, want := range []string{hidden, "postgres-database", "first query"} {
			if !strings.Contains(err.Error(), want) {
				t.Errorf("refusing %q did not mention %q, so nobody learns what to write:\n%v",
					hidden, want, err)
			}
		}
	}
}

// The rule is about coupling, not about specificity everywhere. Naming `route` after a particular
// proxy would be the same error in the other direction.
func TestARoleNameIsFineWhereTheConsumerCannotTellTheDifference(t *testing.T) {
	for _, role := range []string{"route", "resolver", "artifact-store", "postgres-database"} {
		if _, err := ParseManifest([]byte(`{"module":"m","version":"1",
			"provides":[{"name":"` + role + `","scope":"mesh"}]}`)); err != nil {
			t.Errorf("providing %q was refused, and it names what a consumer actually gets: %v",
				role, err)
		}
	}
}