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

Feature: improve unit tests and e2e test for better coverage #435

Closed
laurentsimon opened this issue May 11, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

Feature: improve unit tests and e2e test for better coverage #435

laurentsimon opened this issue May 11, 2021 · 3 comments
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Community contributions welcome, maintainers supportive of idea but not a high priority kind/enhancement New feature or request priority/must-do Upcoming release

Comments

@laurentsimon
Copy link
Contributor

there are many tests, so this should be done progressively

@laurentsimon laurentsimon added the kind/enhancement New feature or request label May 11, 2021
@azeemshaikh38
Copy link
Contributor

azeemshaikh38 commented May 11, 2021

+1. We really need this. I also think we should make existing tests to be hermetic and non-flaky.

@azeemshaikh38 azeemshaikh38 added the priority/must-do Upcoming release label May 11, 2021
@azeemshaikh38 azeemshaikh38 added good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Community contributions welcome, maintainers supportive of idea but not a high priority labels Jun 29, 2021
@laurentsimon
Copy link
Contributor Author

Something we additionally need is e2e tests for the CLI arguments. We need to test things like:
--repo=bla --policy=, --repo=bla --policy=bla --checks=bla, --local=bla --repo=bla, --local=bla --checks=bla, etc. In particular, not all checks are supported when running on a local folder. Also, if checks are explicitly listed, they must be a subset of whose contained in the policy file. Ill add more requirements when we have the GH actions (which adds these additional options) ready.

naveensrinivasan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2022
#435

Signed-off-by: naveen <172697+naveensrinivasan@users.noreply.github.com>
naveensrinivasan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2022
#435

Signed-off-by: naveen <172697+naveensrinivasan@users.noreply.github.com>
naveensrinivasan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2022
naveensrinivasan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2022
#435

Signed-off-by: naveen <172697+naveensrinivasan@users.noreply.github.com>
naveensrinivasan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2022
Addresses #435

Signed-off-by: naveen <172697+naveensrinivasan@users.noreply.github.com>
naveensrinivasan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2022
Addresses #435

Signed-off-by: naveen <172697+naveensrinivasan@users.noreply.github.com>
naveensrinivasan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2022
azeemshaikh38 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2022
@spencerschrock
Copy link
Member

Given the age I'm going to mark this as done, especially given the unit test work Naveen did last year.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Community contributions welcome, maintainers supportive of idea but not a high priority kind/enhancement New feature or request priority/must-do Upcoming release
Projects
Status: Done
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants