About 3.0.6 #44
Closed
About 3.0.6 #44
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
These new utilities make it easier to test HTTP requests and responses dealing with multiple paths, and simple responses payloads or errors with custom headers. It does this through a `make_handler_for_paths()` function that takes in a dictionary of information and returns a method to pass to `setup_http_test()`. It also adds a `dump_json()` method that wraps `json.dumps()` and returns a bytestring, helping deal with Python 2/3 compatibility. Testing Done: Used these new methods in upcoming unit tests, which pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9857/
The code that generates form data payloads for HTTP POST requests for hosting services resulted in payloads that weren't easy to test against. The fields were listed in dictionary iteration order, which varied between Python 2 and 3. We also didn't have a great place to spy on the boundary generator, since `mimetools.choose_boundary()` is no more on Python 3. This change improves testability by wrapping `mimetools.choose_boundary()`, giving us a stable function to spy on, and by sorting the data going into the payload so it's more predictable. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Tested this along with other upcoming changes that test these payloads. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9869/
This updates the GitHub test suite to use the new helpers for hosting service unit tests, which provide better, more consistent checks with simpler code. The results of all HTTP requests are checked, ensuring we're calling what we expect and that behavior doesn't change in the future. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9871/
This updates the RB-Gateway test suite to use the new helpers for hosting service unit tests, which provide better, more consistent checks with simpler code. The results of all HTTP requests are checked, ensuring we're calling what we expect and that behavior doesn't change in the future. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9870/
This updates the Kiln test suite to use the new helpers for hosting service unit tests, which provide better, more consistent checks with simpler code. The results of all HTTP requests are checked, ensuring we're calling what we expect and that behavior doesn't change in the future. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9770/
This updates the GitLab test suite to use the new helpers for hosting service unit tests, which provide better, more consistent checks with simpler code. The results of all HTTP requests are checked, ensuring we're calling what we expect and that behavior doesn't change in the future. It also fleshes out the test suite, ensuring we have matching tests for both GitLab API v3 and v4. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9772/
This updates the Bitbucket test suite to use the new helpers for hosting service unit tests, which provide better, more consistent checks with simpler code. The results of all HTTP requests are checked, ensuring we're calling what we expect and that behavior doesn't change in the future. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9778/
This updates the CodebaseHQ test suite to use the new helpers for hosting service unit tests, which provide better, more consistent checks with simpler code. The results of all HTTP requests are checked, ensuring we're calling what we expect and that behavior doesn't change in the future. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9777/
This updates the Unfuddle test suite to use the new helpers for hosting service unit tests, which provide better, more consistent checks with simpler code. The results of all HTTP requests are checked, ensuring we're calling what we expect and that behavior doesn't change in the future. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9868/
This updates the Beanstalk test suite to use the new helpers for hosting service unit tests, which provide better, more consistent checks with simpler code. The results of all HTTP requests are checked, ensuring we're calling what we expect and that behavior doesn't change in the future. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9779/
This updates the Assembla test suite to use the new helpers for hosting service unit tests, which provide better, more consistent checks with simpler code and less private method usage. It also raises better messages when skipping tests due to lack of Perforce support. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9780/
This updates the Gerrit test suite to use the new helpers for hosting service unit tests, which provide better, more consistent checks with simpler code. The results of all HTTP requests are checked, ensuring we're calling what we expect and that behavior doesn't change in the future. Testing Done: Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9775/
The new Gerrit support was originally written and tested with an older version of Gerrit, which used HTTP Digest Auth. Newer versions now use Basic Auth exclusively, which prevented any communication with the API. Adding both a pre-filled Basic Auth header and registering for Digest Auth enables us to support both. There was also a problem with the repository form. If any validation errors were hit with the URL, the page would crash, since `clean()` was assuming the presence of a cleaned URL. This is now checked for presence before basing anything off the URL. Unit tests were added for these scenarios. Testing Done: Manually tested with Gerrit 2.13.11 (last to support Digest Auth) and 2.4.13 (which uses Basic Auth) to ensure that accounts could be linked, repositories saved, and files fetched. Manually tested the form with invalid URLs to make sure a valid error was shown, instead of the page crashing. Unit tests pass. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9872/
The memcached statistics code is pretty old, and has a lot of warts. One of those warts is that hostnames without ports would lead to crashes, and another is that "STAT" lines containing a name but not a value would as well. A third is that we had to use the Django memcached backend to get memcached stats. This change fixes those three issues, and updates some of the syntax and docs for the file. The stats code is still very limited (other backends can't provide stats, and we're assuming a lot about the data), but this will be addressed separately. Testing Done: Tested all the failure conditions I previously hit (lack of port causing a crash, lack of value in a "STAT" line, and lack of stats for a custom memcached backend). Unit tests were _not_ added, due to a planned redesign, which the tests would not survive. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9878/
The "enable search" field was missing a space in its help text (which was missed due to wrapping a multi-line string). This has been rectified. Testing Done: Viewed the admin UI and verified the text. Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/9879/
|
You probably wanted to post to our community support list, not open a pull request. The short answer is that the Reviewers list is for specifying people you want to review your code, but does not restrict reviews to those users. We provide an inclusive model where anyone with feedback can contribute to the review process. Companies that want to restrict things can lock down with private repositories, invite-only groups, or extensions that alter the review behavior (this is a more advanced capability). |
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.
Hi, when I commit a review request, I specify the reviewer people ping.ni, but another people jun.he can ship it. I do not know why, can you give me the answer.
Thank you for your attention.