🏃 Cleanup the readability of some gomega error checking #1497
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
| @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ func deployCAPIComponents(kindCluster kind.Cluster) { | |||
|
|
|||
| // write out the manifests | |||
| manifestFile := path.Join(suiteTmpDir, "cluster-api-components.yaml") | |||
| gomega.Expect(ioutil.WriteFile(manifestFile, capiManifests, 0644)).NotTo(gomega.HaveOccurred()) | |||
| gomega.Expect(ioutil.WriteFile(manifestFile, capiManifests, 0644)).To(gomega.Succeed()) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For errors we usually use .NotTo(HaveOccurred()), in line with Solly's suggestion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we are testing the error separately, I agree. If we are testing the result of a method that returns a single error value, .NotTo(HaveOccurred() reads as if you intend for the call to not have occurred, vs testing for success.
Gomega docs recommend using Succeed in this case as well: https://onsi.github.io/gomega/#handling-errors
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have been meaning to file an issue about this. Expect(SomeCallThatReturnsAnError()).NotTo(HaveOccurred()) is super confusing to read.
|
/approve |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: detiber, vincepri The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What this PR does / why we need it:
Cleans up the readability of some of the gomega error checking in the test helpers.