Test BZ 1242534

[Ichimonji10]

Listing a content view filter's rules succeeds when the content view filter is
of type "rpm" or "package_group". It fails when the content view filter is of
type "erratum".

Test results without @skip_if_bug_open decorator:

$ nosetests tests/foreman/api/test_contentviewfilter.py:BZ1242534TestCase
E..
======================================================================
ERROR: @Test: Search for an erratum content view filter's rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/ichimonji10/code/robottelo/robottelo/common/decorators.py", line 372, in wrapper_func
    return func(*args, **kwargs)
File "/home/ichimonji10/code/robottelo/tests/foreman/api/test_contentviewfilter.py", line 617, in test_search_erratum
    entities.ContentViewFilterRule(content_view_filter=cv_filter).search()
File "/home/ichimonji10/code/nailgun/nailgun/entity_mixins.py", line 1243, in search
    results = self.search_json(fields, query)['results']
File "/home/ichimonji10/code/nailgun/nailgun/entity_mixins.py", line 1096, in search_json
    response.raise_for_status()
File "/home/ichimonji10/.virtualenvs/robottelo2/lib/python2.7/site-packages/requests/models.py", line 851, in raise_for_status
    raise HTTPError(http_error_msg, response=self)
HTTPError: 500 Server Error: Internal Server Error

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 3 tests in 10.545s

FAILED (errors=1)

Test results with decorator applied:

(robottelo2)[ichimonji10@beech:robottelo]$ nosetests tests/foreman/api/test_contentviewfilter.py:BZ1242534TestCase
S..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 3 tests in 6.881s

OK (SKIP=1)

See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242534#c5

[Ichimonji10]

Depends on SatelliteQE/nailgun#193.

[oshtaier]

In my opinion, it will be better to use new content view per each filter (use setUp instead setUpClass)

[oshtaier]

Could we have better name for our new class? Something not related to BZ ID as when defect get to VERIFIED state, it will be not actual to have name like that anymore

[oshtaier]

ACK pending comments

[Ichimonji10]

Could we have better name for our new class? Something not related to BZ ID as when defect get to VERIFIED state, it will be not actual to have name like that anymore

Any suggestions? The point of that test case is to test that one bug.

It seems these three test cases verify basic search functionality for content view filters. I would recommend something like ContentViewFilterSearchTestCase. We can expand that class further in future

That bug will not disappear from bugzilla when it changes to the "VERIFIED" state.

We are trying to get rid any references to BZ after defect is resolved. We have in plans to review code once a month to remove not actual @skip_if_bug_open statements at all.

In my opinion, it will be better to use new content view per each filter (use setUp instead setUpClass)

Why? Creating one content view in each test confers no benefit and makes the test longer.

It is more correct from QA point of view, but it is not critical for sure

[Ichimonji10]

It seems these three test cases verify basic search functionality for content view filters. I would recommend something like ContentViewFilterSearchTestCase. We can expand that class further in future

That makes sense. I'll do that.

It is more correct from QA point of view, but it is not critical for sure

I see the benefit to making the test cases more independent. If there's an issue with making multiple content view filters that point to a single content view, then our tests will break! But that's not the case right now. And if there is, we can easily adjust the test suite. I'm trying to balance the desire for full test separation against the desire for speedy test runs.

[oshtaier]

Sure. Thanks

[Ichimonji10]

The tests still act as expected:

$ nosetests tests/foreman/api/test_contentviewfilter.py:SearchTestCase
S..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 3 tests in 9.609s

OK (SKIP=1)

[elyezer]

ACK

[oshtaier]

ACK