-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 205
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
fullstack: Make find_status_text wait for the element #4286
fullstack: Make find_status_text wait for the element #4286
Conversation
d2d5d75
to
c7e3a71
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4286 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 97.94% 97.92% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 371 371
Lines 33665 33614 -51
==========================================
- Hits 32972 32917 -55
- Misses 693 697 +4
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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.
Please look into the decreased coverage. All files in t should definitely have 100% statement coverage
c7e3a71
to
09d6fa0
Compare
The flaky coverage for FullstackUtils.pm is handled in |
The decreased coverage in t/full-stack.t is probably just due to the removal of a subroutine. |
Maybe #4293 is also an alternative to this one. |
But the absolute coverage displayed as not 100% anymore. Do I again misinterpret the codecov numbers? |
09d6fa0
to
7b0658d
Compare
4515b6d
to
89c0314
Compare
This pull request is now in conflicts. Could you fix it? 🙏 |
89c0314
to
5dfff29
Compare
Looking into the Devel::Cover report: There it shows which lines are uncovered. I don't see these lines at all in the codecov report :-/ |
Codecov seems to be happy now. Please only suggest further changes if you know what to change, though. I picked the line by trial-and-error. |
This pull request is now in conflicts. Could you fix it? 🙏 |
5dfff29
to
64db3b7
Compare
Overall the changes look like they do what the git commit message says but I am not convinced that we should do this waiting in all the places. I work prefer if we only do it where we actually understood that we need it. So I suggest to do the replacement only where tests actually fail and if we understood the reason in each case |
This pull request is now in conflicts. Could you fix it? 🙏 |
So after suggesting to rename Edit: This mean this will block on #4293 |
Fixes the following error: findElement: no such element: Unable to locate element: {"method":"css selector","selector":"#info_box .card-body"}` See: https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98952
64db3b7
to
28328e6
Compare
This pull request is now in conflicts. Could you fix it? 🙏 |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
This Pull Request has been automatically closed as it did not have any activity in the last 97 days. Thank you. |
Fixes the following error:
See: https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98952