Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
SCT-3141 Add support for config repo GitHub release workflow #408
SCT-3141 Add support for config repo GitHub release workflow #408
Changes from 18 commits
f2c57bf
7c16195
3677f27
bd09a2b
2e8e22c
a760027
8008485
ecd708b
2a01b76
e104606
dc88404
d7b9299
84ccd4d
e94ed70
67212e3
8ff1285
254f5ce
26fbd93
9d39e02
3fc00de
a2babe8
bb50184
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't seem to see a test for the no provided tag case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
test_config_get_validators_github_bad_tag covers a bad tag. Multiple tests don't provide an explicit tag
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, I'm not seeing those. I only see one happy path test and it uses a tag
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
bad tag: https://github.com/kbase/sample_service/pull/408/files#diff-daeaaa8b25848f3758165ca3a64ab5d0a9d57ace8942f4d66c6894665153da56R190
provides no tag and finds no tagged release:
https://github.com/kbase/sample_service/pull/408/files#diff-daeaaa8b25848f3758165ca3a64ab5d0a9d57ace8942f4d66c6894665153da56R218
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There doesn't seem to be a test for this case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what is "this"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you mean the no-assets case. It's not currently replicable with GH, but the API spec doesnt specifically disallow an empty array here so, this is a "just in case" error that would require mocking GH reponses to test, which i think would be wild overkill
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If it's practically impossible for this case to occur, I would just take code path out and add a comment that currently google will always have > 0 assets. If things change it'll throw a
TypeError
which I think is fineThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There doesn't seem to be a test for this case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Again, its just differentiated error text for an already tested error
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same comment as below re test writing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There doesn't seem to be a test for this case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mentioned I think in a previous comment, I'm not of the opinion one is needed, as this is the same (already tested) bad-yaml case with different err text. Covered by test_config_get_validators_fail_bad_yaml
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess I don't understand why you wouldn't add a test? It's an uncovered code path and so should get a test for that code path IMO. The tests look pretty simple to write so naively it seems like a 5 minutes thing. I would certainly write one if it was my PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mostly because it's a weird amount of overhead to use a third party service in tests to test a code path that is only differentiated by earlier (tested) behavior. It's also not a functionally different code path, it just changes what string is thrown...