-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 53
fix!: custom object records integration tests #1858
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ |
|
||
// describe.each(['hubspot'])('%s', (providerName) => { | ||
describe.each(['hubspot', 'salesforce'])('%s', (providerName) => { | ||
test(`Post /`, async () => { |
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.
this is testing quite a bit of things: can you make the test more descriptive or annotate in the test what mutations you're making and what you're testing for?
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.
I am using the same pattern / precedent as all the other integration tests.
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.
Can we improve upon it for readability; I haven't gotten to reviewing every PR so some patterns we can improve upon
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.
In that case I would like to open a separate PR where I can address this holistically across all of our integration tests. Does that sound good to you?
if (message === 'one or more associations are not valid') { | ||
if ( | ||
message === 'one or more associations are not valid' || | ||
message.includes('Some required properties were not set') |
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.
startsWith
or includes
?
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.
it says includes
here.
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.
I'm more asking what it should be: it looks like we're expecting it to be the start of the message, and the end of the message is dynamic?
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.
If you look at the integration test I added, you can see that the full error message is Error creating {{CUSTOM_OBJ_NAME}}. Some required properties were not set.
This should be a |
There are no breaking changes in this PR. |
The response code change is breaking |
This also includes some bugfixes on the relevant code: