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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
test(subscriber): add initial integration tests #452
test(subscriber): add initial integration tests #452
Changes from 2 commits
42fb829
813d020
82abe73
5d3245d
c1a2565
b56c123
380345a
695644e
bd9c315
a61bdd6
76bb061
7b32fdc
3057541
d774483
4dac412
e24d484
fee7b0a
514aba1
4af221a
7619741
6fce209
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
tiny nit, take it or leave it: is there a reason this is a whole additional function, rather than just being a re-export of
run_test
? we couldif we want it to be named
assert_tasks
(but also, we could just name the original function that...)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It was more a case of putting the "internal public" functions together to make the documentation clearer. Otherwise we'd have "public" docs here and on the
run_test
function. Not sure what the best practice is in this case to be honest.