Improve constraint assertions #240
Merged
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
Be more precise about whether a `VALID` or `NOT VALID` foreign key is expected.
Ensure that a constraint with the expected name is present on the table.
Change the assertion to look for `CHECK` constraints and rename the assertion functions accordingly.
exekias
approved these changes
Jan 17, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Add more precise test assertions for constraints and foreign key existence.
Previously there was one
ConstraintMustExistassertion that served for all kinds constraints. This PR adds:CheckConstraintMustExistValidatedForeignKeyMustExistNotValidatedForeignKeyMustExistand updates tests to use each, as appropriate.