[test] Fix test data remove slice_name

[graceguo-supercat]

CATEGORY

Choose one

• Bug Fix
• Enhancement (new features, refinement)
• Refactor
• Add tests
• Build / Development Environment
• Documentation

SUMMARY

When user save dashboard, we allow user do not user original slice_name saved in Slice table, and have a copy of slice name which is only used by a dashboard. We also allow user to set this dashboard's slice name be empty.

in front-end code i think we copy slice_name into layout data and send with save_dash API. But in unit tests we didn't set slicename attribute in the mock layout data, and cause after /save_dash/ api call in unit test, sample slices created for unit tests lost their slice_name. So that some unit tests that rely on slice_name uniqueness became flacky.

Solution
I fixed the logic in save_dash. It will only reset slice_name when has explicit attribute in layout.

TEST PLAN

CI

REVIEWERS

@john-bodley @mistercrunch

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #7898 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 33.33%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7898      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.76%   65.76%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files         461      461              
  Lines       22188    22190       +2     
  Branches     2425     2425              
==========================================
+ Hits        14592    14594       +2     
  Misses       7475     7475              
  Partials      121      121

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
superset/views/core.py	71.66% <33.33%> (-0.37%)	⬇️
superset/utils/core.py	88.08% <0%> (+0.16%)	⬆️
superset/db_engine_specs/sqlite.py	66.66% <0%> (+20.83%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ccedbea...fea173b. Read the comment docs.

[john-bodley]

Because on line #1970 and #1977 you know that both the meta and sliceName key exists I think it's clearer if you simply do,

slice_id_to_name[slice_id] = value["meta"]["sliceName"]

[graceguo-supercat]

fixed.

[john-bodley]

Somewhat unrelated to your change but I sense we can cleanup some of this logic (which could be error prone as get() returns None if the key doesn't exist),

if (
     isinstance(value, dict)
     and "meta" in value 
     and "chartId" in value["meta"]
):
    slice_id = value["meta"]["chartId"]
    slice_ids.append(slice_id)
    if "sliceName" in value["meta"]:
        slice_id_to_name[slice_id] = value["meta"]["sliceName"]    

or

try:
    slice_id = value["meta"]["chartId"]
    ...
except KeyError:
    pass

Note I'm uncertain whether sliceId or sliceName could be None and whether additional checks are required.

[graceguo-supercat]

meta, sliceId, sliceName could be None.
user doesn't have to show a slice with name in dashboard, but the associated Slice entry in the database still have name column

[graceguo-supercat]

fixed.

[john-bodley]

@graceguo-supercat thanks for tracing down the root cause of the issue. I had a couple of small comments but otherwise this LGTM.