Skip to content
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

🌱 apibindingdeletion: use mockable methods #2173

Conversation

stevekuznetsov
Copy link
Contributor

apibindingdeletion: use committer library for patches

Signed-off-by: Steve Kuznetsov skuznets@redhat.com


apibindingdeletion: don't use fake clients in tests

Signed-off-by: Steve Kuznetsov skuznets@redhat.com


/cc @qiujian16
/assign @ncdc
Part of #2167

newPartialObject("v1", "Pod", "pod1", "ns1", nil),
newPartialObject("apps/v1", "Deployment", "deploy1", "ns1", nil),
},
metadataClientActionSet: []metaAction{
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed any check for the client calls here since it seems sufficient to validate the method we're testing - just inputs and outputs - without assuming implementation details in there.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I kinda think we should be validating what it's issuing - e.g. at least that it's trying to delete the right stuff

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Happy to have someone do that in a follow-up - notably, the original test did not do that.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

File an issue or add a TODO?

newPartialObject("v1", "Pod", "pod1", "ns1", nil),
newPartialObject("apps/v1", "Deployment", "deploy1", "ns1", nil),
},
metadataClientActionSet: []metaAction{
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I kinda think we should be validating what it's issuing - e.g. at least that it's trying to delete the right stuff

Signed-off-by: Steve Kuznetsov <skuznets@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steve Kuznetsov <skuznets@redhat.com>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 17, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 17, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ncdc

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 17, 2022
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit a09d1b4 into kcp-dev:main Oct 17, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants