update integration tests for #814

[cdisselkoen]

Description of changes

Update integration tests for the changes in #814. This was missed in #814 itself, perhaps we should check our CI?

Issue #, if available

#814

Checklist for requesting a review

The change in this PR is (choose one, and delete the other options):

• A bug fix or other functionality change requiring a patch to cedar-policy.

I confirm that this PR (choose one, and delete the other options):

• Does not update the CHANGELOG because my change does not significantly impact released code.

I confirm that cedar-spec (choose one, and delete the other options):

• Does not require updates because my change does not impact the Cedar formal model or DRT infrastructure.

[khieta]

The CI is currently using https://github.com/cedar-policy/cedar-integration-tests (only Java is still using the old folder in this repo). I would have expected CI to fail though -- do integration tests run successfully locally? You can run them locally following the instruction in the README here https://github.com/cedar-policy/cedar/tree/main/cedar-testing

[cdisselkoen]

Well, in #814 the Java CI failed, which was expected (the Java updates for #814 are in cedar-policy/cedar-java#129). Your comment explains why only the Java CI failed, and not the CI in this repo. We should at some point fix the Java to use https://github.com/cedar-policy/cedar-integration-tests like everything else, and then delete this folder, then?

[khieta]

Yes, the plan is to delete the folder here -- I should make an issue to track. The current blocker is that the new integration test repo uses the new schema format, which the Java doesn't support. I figured we'd add support for this in the Java as part of the updates for #757.

Edit: made issue to track: #820

[cdisselkoen]

Java CI is failing on this PR due to cedar-policy/cedar-java#129 not being merged yet. This is expected. I will merge this, even though there is not really any specific test that this PR solved the issue it's trying to address. Worst case, we need another followup PR.