Add JS scenario options #3036
Merged
Add JS scenario options #3036
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3036 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 77.04% 77.02% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 229 229
Lines 17065 17065
==========================================
- Hits 13147 13144 -3
- Misses 3077 3079 +2
- Partials 841 842 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
codebien
requested changes
Apr 28, 2023
mstoykov
previously approved these changes
Apr 28, 2023
imiric
force-pushed
the
feat/3022-browser-options
branch
from
941c830
to
3069173
Compare
codebien
reviewed
Apr 28, 2023
codebien
approved these changes
Apr 28, 2023
mstoykov
approved these changes
Apr 28, 2023
imiric
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2023
Previously, the new scenario `options` field added in #3036 was being serialized to JSON by default, which made it an incompatible change with some of our internal Cloud services that validate the existing configuration structure. This change makes the object optional, and it will only be (de)serialized if it's included in the data.
imiric
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2023
Previously, the new scenario `options` field added in #3036 was being serialized to JSON by default, which made it an incompatible change with some of our internal Cloud services that validate the existing configuration structure. This change makes the object optional, and it will only be serialized if it's included in the data.
imiric
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2023
Previously, the new scenario `options` field added in #3036 was being serialized to JSON by default, which made it an incompatible change with some of our internal Cloud services that validate the existing configuration structure. This change makes the object optional, and it will only be serialized if it's included in the data.
imiric
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2023
Previously, the new scenario `options` field added in #3036 was being serialized to JSON by default, which made it an incompatible change with some of our internal Cloud services that validate the existing configuration structure. This change makes the object optional, and it will only be serialized if it's included in the data.
3 tasks
imiric
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2023
Previously, the new scenario `options` field added in #3036 was being serialized to JSON by default, which made it an incompatible change with some of our internal Cloud services that validate the existing configuration structure. This change makes the object optional, and it will only be serialized if it's included in the data.
imiric
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2023
Previously, the new scenario `options` field added in #3036 was being serialized to JSON by default, which made it an incompatible change with some of our internal Cloud services that validate the existing configuration structure. This change makes the object optional, and it will only be serialized if it's included in the data.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is a quick and possibly naive change to support browser options per scenario (#3022). These options will be parsed and validated by the browser module.
It doesn't try to enable generic options for any JS module as #3000 did, but it seems Ned abandoned this idea. We can open this discussion again once #883 is resolved.
I tested it with
k6 archive, and it does serialize and deserialize frommetadata.jsonproperly. Should I add a test for this? An archive unit test would be a bit convoluted to add because of theExecutorConfiginterface, but maybe an integration test would be simpler.