5844 embargo specs #6114
Merged
5844 embargo specs #6114
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…so that it gets saved to the resource and embargo_manager properly.
…into 5844-embargo-specs
…ass when fixing the merge conflicts
…e_conversion and #perform_embargo_conversion
…mbargo_conversion
alishaevn
commented
Aug 6, 2023
| expect(page).to have_content work.title.first | ||
| expect(page).to have_selector '.alert-success', text: 'Collection was successfully updated.' | ||
| end | ||
| click_button "Add to collection" # opens the modal |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
now skipping the spec conditionally, with a reason.
dassie
koppie
alishaevn
commented
Aug 6, 2023
| expect(response).to have_http_status(:ok) | ||
| expect(response.content_type).to eq 'image/jpeg' | ||
| end | ||
| get Riiif::Engine.routes.url_helpers.image_path(file.id, size: size, format: 'jpg', channels: nil) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This failure is for sure not related to embargo. It should have never been passing because Riiif looks up the file metadata but no file metadata is ever created. Before our valk work, riiif wasn’t working at all. So I don’t know how this could have ever passed in Valkyrie land.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
now skipping the spec conditionally, with a reason.
dassie
koppie
…rb:72 because the failures are unrelated to the #5844 embargo work. both of these specs were failing on main before #6098 was accidentally merged to main with a failing pipeline. in an attempt to get main back to a green pipeline I skipped all failing specs, including these two. ref: 58de8c6. this pr was to fix the broken embargo specs from #6098. these two are still unrelated however and will remain skipped. only in valkyrie, as that is where they are failing. there is work being done on the valkyrie spec suite to fix its several problems. hopefully those fixes will also resolve these issues. as for the riif spec specifically, @orangewolf did some further digging and found: "It should have never been passing because Riiif looks up the file metadata but no file metadata is ever created. Before our valk work, riiif wasn’t working at all. So I do not know how this could have ever passed in Valkyrie land."
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
related
Summary
get the spec pipeline working again
Guidance for testing, such as acceptance criteria or new user interface behaviors:
Type of change (for release notes)
Add an appropriate
notes-*label to the PR (or indicate here) that classifies this change.Choose from:
notes-majorMajor Changes (Potentially breaking changes)notes-minorNew Features that are backward compatiblenotes-deprecationDeprecationsnotes-bugfixBug Fixesnotes-valkyrieValkyrie Progressnotes-docsDocumentationnotes-containerContainerization related (Docker, Helm, etc)Detailed Description
More detailed description, if necessary. Try to be as descriptive as you can: even if you think that the PR content is obvious, it may not be obvious to others. Include tracebacks if helpful, and be sure to call out any bits of the PR that may be work-in-progress.
Description can have multiple paragraphs and you can use code examples inside:
Changes proposed in this pull request:
@samvera/hyrax-code-reviewers