Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

test: update server type list index to ignore cx11 entry #995

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 12, 2024

Conversation

apricote
Copy link
Member

@apricote apricote commented Sep 11, 2024

Do not hardcode the list indices of the two server types we verify. Instead get the list from the API and calculate the expected indices.

This makes us more resilient against changes to the list when server types are deprecated/removed.

@apricote apricote self-assigned this Sep 11, 2024
@apricote apricote requested a review from a team as a code owner September 11, 2024 13:28
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 11, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 69.67%. Comparing base (0873fb1) to head (3325318).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #995       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   34.24%   69.67%   +35.42%     
===========================================
  Files          64       64               
  Lines        7974     7974               
===========================================
+ Hits         2731     5556     +2825     
+ Misses       5202     1718     -3484     
- Partials       41      700      +659     
Flag Coverage Δ
e2e 69.67% <ø> (?)
unit 34.24% <ø> (ø)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@jooola
Copy link
Member

jooola commented Sep 11, 2024

Could we update the test data to use cx11 instead? And fix it again once we removed it?

@apricote apricote force-pushed the skip-server-type-list-test branch from df007d0 to 7c768ab Compare September 12, 2024 06:38
…nges

Do not hardcode the list indices of the two server types we verify.
Instead get the list from the API and calculate the expected indices.

This makes us more resilient against changes to the list when server
types are deprecated/removed.
@apricote apricote force-pushed the skip-server-type-list-test branch from 7c768ab to 78d6f43 Compare September 12, 2024 06:48
@apricote apricote changed the title test: skip server-type list test until CX11 is fully removed test(server-type): use dynamic index to be resilient against list changes Sep 12, 2024
@apricote
Copy link
Member Author

Could we update the test data to use cx11 instead? And fix it again once we removed it?

I updated the PR to instead get the indices of cpx11 and cpx21 and use those instead of hardcoding 0 and 1. What do you think about that approach?

@jooola jooola changed the title test(server-type): use dynamic index to be resilient against list changes test(server-type): update server type list index Sep 12, 2024
@jooola jooola changed the title test(server-type): update server type list index test: update server type list index to ignore cx11 entry Sep 12, 2024
@jooola
Copy link
Member

jooola commented Sep 12, 2024

Let me know what you think

@apricote
Copy link
Member Author

Works for me!

@jooola jooola merged commit d73828a into main Sep 12, 2024
7 checks passed
@jooola jooola deleted the skip-server-type-list-test branch September 12, 2024 13:01
jooola added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2024
jooola added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2024
jooola added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2024
jooola added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2024
jooola added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants