Remove ginkgo from api tests #399
Conversation
Codecov ReportPatch coverage has no change and project coverage change:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #399 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 81.64% 81.43% -0.22%
==========================================
Files 21 21
Lines 937 937
==========================================
- Hits 765 763 -2
- Misses 119 120 +1
- Partials 53 54 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@ncdc baby steps to removing Ginkgo... |
@joelanford added these tests, see #122 |
|
Interesting, I haven't seen anyone validate that every condition is set post-reconcile before. |
WDYT about that? I set that test up as a reaction to seeing various reconcilers not properly update conditions when Reconcile doesn't follow the happy path. This essentially forces all tested code paths to think about how all of the conditions should be set, and it somewhat guards against the possibility of multiple reconciles being necessary to fully process a change/update. |
|
In other projects, our reconcilers added conditions when they were relevant, and didn't ensure 100% of the possible conditions were present 100% of the time. I'm not against the validation, although the purist in me would rather not see exported package level variables that only exist to serve unit tests. But we don't need to debate the pros/cons of that in this PR. |
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
openshift-merge-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
|
@ncdc, I had to rebase, and handle a |
This is related to epic operator-framework#189, although there doesn't seem to be a related issue for this directory. Signed-off-by: Todd Short <tshort@redhat.com>
1ec4a23
This is related to epic #189, although there doesn't seem to be a related issue for this directory.
Description
Reviewer Checklist