Relationship e2e tests #15016
Relationship e2e tests #15016
Conversation
ghost
added
the
| @@ -75,6 +75,12 @@ | |||
| <version>5.6.2</version> <!-- {x-version-update;org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-params;external_dependency} --> | |||
| <scope>test</scope> | |||
| </dependency> | |||
| <dependency> | |||
| <groupId>org.assertj</groupId> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using assertj for fluent assertions, let me know what you guys think.
| * @return A {@link PagedIterable} of application/json relationships directed towards the specified digital twin and the http response. | ||
| */ | ||
| @ServiceMethod(returns = ReturnType.COLLECTION) | ||
| public PagedIterable<IncomingRelationship> listIncomingRelationships(String digitalTwinId) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This API overload was missing.
abhipsaMisra
force-pushed
the
relationshipTest
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d61b725
to
335a9ca
Compare
abhipsaMisra
force-pushed
the
relationshipTest
branch
from
335a9ca
to
2bfe6e0
Compare
abhipsaMisra
requested review from
azabbasi,
barustum,
bikamani,
drwill-ms,
timtay-microsoft and
vinagesh
as code owners
| .as("Created relationship from room -> floor"); | ||
| logger.info("Created {} relationship between source = {} and target = {}", roomFloorRelationship.getId(), roomFloorRelationship.getSourceId(), roomFloorRelationship.getTargetId()); | ||
|
|
||
| // Create a relation which already exists - should return status code 409 (Conflict). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this be split out into a separate test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought about that, but that would require that we create the model and twins again. Since they were already available as a part of this lifecycle test, I added this assertion in here directly.
...igitaltwins-core/src/test/java/com/azure/digitaltwins/core/DigitalTwinsRelationshipTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| client.deleteRelationship(hvacTwinId, HVAC_COOLS_FLOOR_RELATIONSHIP_ID); | ||
| logger.info("Deleted relationship {} for twin {}", HVAC_COOLS_FLOOR_RELATIONSHIP_ID, hvacTwinId); | ||
|
|
||
| // GET a relationship which doesn't exist - should return status code 404 (Not Found). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this be split out into a separate test? This test is already quite long
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can split it into a separate test if you feel strongly about it; I added it in here because of the convenience (the models are twins were already created).
| .verifyErrorSatisfies(ex -> assertRestException(ex, HTTP_PRECON_FAILED)); | ||
|
|
||
| // Update relationships | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Like in the sync client test, are you missing code here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, the update operation is in the line right below this comment. Is the additional spacing confusing? Or is it because of the comment "Create relationship from Floor -> Room"?
| import java.util.function.Function; | ||
|
|
||
| public class UniqueIdHelper { | ||
| public static String getUniqueModelId(String baseName, DigitalTwinsAsyncClient client, Function<Integer, String> randomIntegerStringGenerator) { | ||
| return getUniqueId(baseName, (modelId -> client.getModel(modelId).block().getId()), randomIntegerStringGenerator); | ||
| return getUniqueId(baseName, (modelId -> Objects.requireNonNull(client.getModel(modelId).block()).getId()), randomIntegerStringGenerator); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
don't we need it everywhere in this file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the required non-null check? I added it here because intellij recommended that I do; we should go through our code to see if it makes sense to add it elsewhere as well.
| @@ -0,0 +1,276 @@ | |||
| // Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we just call it RelationshipsAsyncTest? do we need the DigitalTwin prefix?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I followed the naming pattern that we've used in our .NET samples
Changes to fix the Resource Provider name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB (Azure#15016) * Changes to fix the Resource provided name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB services * Changes to fix the Resource provided name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB services * Revert "Changes to fix the Resource provided name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB services" This reverts commit ecc38dc560b77de750350143fd80bdd6e3823882.
Changes to fix the Resource Provider name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB (Azure#15016) * Changes to fix the Resource provided name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB services * Changes to fix the Resource provided name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB services * Revert "Changes to fix the Resource provided name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB services" This reverts commit ecc38dc560b77de750350143fd80bdd6e3823882.
Changes to fix the Resource Provider name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB (Azure#15016) * Changes to fix the Resource provided name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB services * Changes to fix the Resource provided name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB services * Revert "Changes to fix the Resource provided name casing issue for Azure Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB services" This reverts commit ecc38dc560b77de750350143fd80bdd6e3823882.
No description provided.