Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

grpcproxy: respect KeysOnly flag #8552

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 13, 2017

Conversation

heyitsanthony
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #8478

Test was checking key name is returned, but was not correctly checking
no value is returned.
@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@1b85dad). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #8552   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   65.96%           
=========================================
  Files             ?      360           
  Lines             ?    29568           
  Branches          ?        0           
=========================================
  Hits              ?    19505           
  Misses            ?     8402           
  Partials          ?     1661
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
proxy/grpcproxy/kv.go 89.7% <100%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1b85dad...7f44644. Read the comment docs.

cx.t.Fatal(err)
}
if err := spawnWithExpects(cmdArgs, "val"); err == nil {
cx.t.Fatalf("got value but passed --keys-only")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: t.Errorf is better here.

@xiang90
Copy link
Contributor

xiang90 commented Sep 13, 2017

lgtm

@heyitsanthony heyitsanthony merged commit 4afb99f into etcd-io:master Sep 13, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants