-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
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: "fill attributes of swagger schema if provided for messages" #849
test: "fill attributes of swagger schema if provided for messages" #849
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #849 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 50.41% 51.83% +1.42%
==========================================
Files 39 39
Lines 3765 3764 -1
==========================================
+ Hits 1898 1951 +53
+ Misses 1685 1629 -56
- Partials 182 184 +2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Right then; re: test, I think it's good that we've got an example added to |
Yup, will do |
🔍 I couldn't find any obvious extension point -- it looks like only message fields have test scaffolding for the schemaCore bits, not messages. I'm happy to add a similar thing to message; is my basic understanding alright here? |
Seems about as good as my understanding of these tests 😬. Please try and add a new structure within which we can test the messages :). Also, maybe add some more examples in |
Thanks a lot for taking over! I didn't find the time to finish it. Also, my code was lacking one thing: setting the example value on field level, as the protobuf option doesn't make it possible (see my old comment in #799). Do you think you could work on that as well? Otherwise, you can only set the example for the WHOLE rpc, which is annoying i think. tiny remark: would be great if you would keep my commits in the history as i wrote the initial patch. |
@birdayz I'm in strong agreement that your contribution shouldn't be lost. I will make an exception to the single commit/PR rule to ensure that you get credit for your hard work. Thanks so much for contributing to the project. Without people like you this couldn't work |
Alternatively, we could merge #799 as-is and I'll put up a test-only PR following that. |
Yeah, let's merge the original and add tests asynchronously, that'd be the easiest solution. |
Signed-off-by: Stephan Renatus <[email protected]>
3baf423
to
d324e93
Compare
Signed-off-by: Stephan Renatus <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephan Renatus <[email protected]>
This is great, thanks for taking the lead on this @srenatus. Looks like we've got a bazel failure. You should be able to fix it like so:
|
Originally, I wanted this to become a test for nested messages; but I didn't make it that far. Anyhow, I think this way of testing this is better than what I had in this PR before. Signed-off-by: Stephan Renatus <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephan Renatus <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephan Renatus <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephan Renatus <[email protected]>
Great work on this, thanks! Increasing the coverage of that file by 5%! |
Back-filling tests for #799:
test nested messagesmaybe next time 😅