acceptance tests

[bboozzoo]

It's a WIP, don't merge yet.

@maciejmrowiec @mendersoftware/rndity

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #220 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #220   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   72.66%   72.66%           
=======================================
  Files          35       35           
  Lines        1950     1950           
=======================================
  Hits         1417     1417           
  Misses        477      477           
  Partials       56       56

---

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 31833c7...1c6acff. Read the comment docs.

[bboozzoo]

ready for review & merging

[bboozzoo]

FWIW integration jobs are failing due to unrelated reasons, acceptance tests are green

[maciejmrowiec]

@GregorioDiStefano can you have a peek ?

[GregorioDiStefano]

@bboozzoo can you add a test to verify that a deployment status correctly reports the valid state at this end point: https://docs.mender.io/1.0/APIs/Management-APIs/Deployments#get-the-details-of-a-selected-deployment

[bboozzoo]

@GregorioDiStefano it's already checked in a couple of places:
adc53c1#diff-21b1d858f64fe9145c83a0c63b6295e0R113
adc53c1#diff-21b1d858f64fe9145c83a0c63b6295e0R174
adc53c1#diff-21b1d858f64fe9145c83a0c63b6295e0R310
adc53c1#diff-21b1d858f64fe9145c83a0c63b6295e0R320

[GregorioDiStefano]

damn github UI doesn't load the entire changes unless you do some clicking...

[bboozzoo]

BTW. a number of observations (as it's the 3rd service to get acceptance tests):

• bravado is a so-so library, lacks DELETE support, method names are awkwardly long
  ** there's bravado-core (?!), but I can't tell what is the relation between the two
• it would be nice if our services provided api spec at one of the endpoints (yes, just like we did with WSDL in the past), this way we could avoid copying the spec files around, at least we'd be sure that the spec you get is the one that was used during the build

[GregorioDiStefano]

are you sure about the lacking delete support? I'm pretty sure it supports DELETE

[bboozzoo]

Last time I used delete was when writing deviceauth acceptance tests and you could call a method but there was no associated HTTP request going out (and no exception either).

[bboozzoo]

Any more changes needed here?

[bboozzoo]

@GregorioDiStefano replaced artifact deletion with this:

diff --git a/tests/tests/client.py b/tests/tests/client.py
index a857189..50f0319 100644
--- a/tests/tests/client.py
+++ b/tests/tests/client.py
@@ -121,11 +121,8 @@ class ArtifactsClient(SwaggerApiClient):
     def delete_artifact(self, artid=''):
         # delete it now (NOTE: not using bravado as bravado does not support
         # DELETE)
-        rsp = requests.delete(self.make_api_url('/artifacts/{}'.format(artid)), verify=False)
-        try:
-            assert rsp.status_code == 204
-        except AssertionError:
-            raise ArtifactsClientError('delete failed', rsp)
+
+        self.client.artifacts.delete_artifacts_id(Authorization='foo', id=artid)

and artifacts are no longer removed, there's no delete request to the backend at all ;)

[bboozzoo]

merge?