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

Added tests for KubernetesClient serialization/deserialization #41274

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 18, 2024

Conversation

manusa
Copy link
Contributor

@manusa manusa commented Jun 18, 2024

Should ensure that (de)serialization works as expected both in JVM and Native modes.

Relates to #39934

/cc @galderz

Should ensure that (de)serialization works as expected both in
JVM and Native modes.

Signed-off-by: Marc Nuri <marc@marcnuri.com>
@quarkus-bot
Copy link

quarkus-bot bot commented Jun 18, 2024

Status for workflow Quarkus CI

This is the status report for running Quarkus CI on commit f4ae263.

✅ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully.

It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary.

You can consult the Develocity build scans.

Copy link
Member

@gsmet gsmet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@gsmet gsmet merged commit 1e084c5 into quarkusio:main Jun 18, 2024
20 checks passed
@quarkus-bot quarkus-bot bot added this to the 3.13 - main milestone Jun 18, 2024
@manusa manusa deleted the test/kubernetes-client-serialization branch June 18, 2024 16:39
.build())
.create();
// JSON data is retrieved from the mock server
when()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this really verifying that the JSON shape is the expected one and not the one with all the empty objects/arrays? #39934 (comment)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

AFAIK, it should.
In any case, if you want to verify manually you can change line 113 from

                .log().ifValidationFails(LogDetail.BODY);

to

                .log().body();

We can also add another assertion to verify that the response body doesn't actually contain the word overhead:

.body(not(containsString("overhead"))

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants