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

Add two new types to MW server factories #16478

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 19, 2017

Conversation

karelhala
Copy link
Contributor

@karelhala karelhala commented Nov 15, 2017

Merge first

This PR enables 2 new middleware server types for testing purposes in ui-classic repository.

@karelhala
Copy link
Contributor Author

@miq-bot add_label bug,gaprindashvili/yes, providers/middleware

@karelhala
Copy link
Contributor Author

@abonas this PR is required to be merged before ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic#2724 so we can update tests of topology.

@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Nov 15, 2017

Checked commit karelhala@722ab56 with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.47.1, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0
1 file checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 🍰

@abonas
Copy link
Member

abonas commented Nov 16, 2017

@miq-bot add_label test
LGTM
@israel-hdez please review as well.
@miq-bot assign @chessbyte

:parent => :middleware_server do
end

factory :hawkular_middleware_server_eap,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If I am not wrong, you can move those three inherited factories within the middleware_server factory and then remove the parent => :middleware_server attribute from each child factory definition.

Here a bit of more context:
https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_bot/blob/master/GETTING_STARTED.md#inheritance

Do you think it worth to change it?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@xeviknal I think the way it is done here in the PR is the same as the rest of miq does, so imo it is not worth to change it for consistency reasons. but I'd like to hear what @agrare thinks :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@abonas is right we (rightly or wrongly) follow this pattern, e.g. see the orchestration_stack factory https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/blob/master/spec/factories/orchestration_stack.rb
👍 on this for consistency

Copy link
Member

@israel-hdez israel-hdez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For me, it's OK.

:parent => :middleware_server do
end

factory :hawkular_middleware_server_eap,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@abonas is right we (rightly or wrongly) follow this pattern, e.g. see the orchestration_stack factory https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/blob/master/spec/factories/orchestration_stack.rb
👍 on this for consistency

@agrare agrare assigned agrare and unassigned chessbyte Nov 19, 2017
@agrare agrare merged commit 2a3700b into ManageIQ:master Nov 19, 2017
simaishi pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 20, 2017
Add two new types to MW server factories
(cherry picked from commit 2a3700b)
@simaishi
Copy link
Contributor

Gaprindashvili backport details:

$ git log -1
commit ee87b92508b79bae96f3df58331f4e72a97493d1
Author: Adam Grare <agrare@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun Nov 19 09:44:14 2017 -0500

    Merge pull request #16478 from karelhala/eapWildflyFactory
    
    Add two new types to MW server factories
    (cherry picked from commit 2a3700be7f9dcadcf6815ebc245b4224af7511f9)

@abonas
Copy link
Member

abonas commented Nov 27, 2017

@agrare could you please add a milestone here? I believe it belongs to 74. thanks

@agrare agrare added this to the Sprint 74 Ending Nov 27, 2017 milestone Nov 27, 2017
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.

8 participants