-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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: add tests for update with exists=false precondition #84
test: add tests for update with exists=false precondition #84
Conversation
@jskeet FYI |
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.
Looks fine to me (albeit a little odd as this is effectively "create" isn't it?). Testing it against the current .NET implementation would be slightly fiddly, but I expect it to be fine.
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.
Undoing previous LGTM - it's not clear whether we do want to prohibit this. (We've never prohibited it in .NET - are we sure this won't break people? What does the server do?)
}, | ||
"jsonData": "{\"a\": 1}", | ||
"isError": true, | ||
"request": { |
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.
As noted in chat, let's remove this given that it's meant to be an 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.
Done.
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.
Much clearer, thanks. And I've verified that it won't break the public API surface for .NET as we don't allow public specification of that precondition anywhere. (I'll need to add validation into the method in order to get the conformance tests to pass, but that's okay.)
@ddelgrosso1 Are you able and willing to give approval for this PR too? It's a follow-up to #82. Feel free to DM me and/or @jskeet if you would like any clarifications. Thank you. |
googleapis/conformance-tests@d160e3a chore: update go version to 1.21 ([googleapis#86](googleapis/conformance-tests#86)) googleapis/conformance-tests@76305a9 test: add tests for update with exists=false precondition ([googleapis#84](googleapis/conformance-tests#84)) googleapis/conformance-tests@3de4678 tests: Reverse position on explicit "must exist" for update googleapis/conformance-tests@3264aa6 chore: Reorder query parameters in expected URL for signature test Full diff: googleapis/conformance-tests@f5b5d0f...d160e3a
…f19 (#643) googleapis/conformance-tests@d160e3a chore: update go version to 1.21 ([#86](googleapis/conformance-tests#86)) googleapis/conformance-tests@76305a9 test: add tests for update with exists=false precondition ([#84](googleapis/conformance-tests#84)) googleapis/conformance-tests@3de4678 tests: Reverse position on explicit "must exist" for update googleapis/conformance-tests@3264aa6 chore: Reorder query parameters in expected URL for signature test Full diff: googleapis/conformance-tests@f5b5d0f...d160e3a
This is a follow-up to #82 which updated the test for the exists precondition.