-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 898
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
Fix ServiceTemplate#picture= with models #18705
Fix ServiceTemplate#picture= with models #18705
Conversation
When creating a service template with a Picture that already exists (done in some of specs in other repos), the previous form of this method would break as `create_picture` was not relevant for updating pictures that already exist. This fix #should™ fix that, but more relevant eyes should probably take a look just to make sure...
Checked commit NickLaMuro@1cb062f with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.52.1, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0 spec/models/service_template_spec.rb
|
Also fixes UI specs:
Thanks! |
@miq-bot add_label hammer/yes @simaishi this fixes travis failures coming from #18689 (hammer/backported) So we may want to backport ASAP, to get hammer travis green on ui and api. (triggered ui hammer travis just to be sure it really fails now: https://travis-ci.org/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/builds/526392856 .. it does fail) |
…e_equals Fix ServiceTemplate#picture= with models (cherry picked from commit f7fc0cb) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702479
Hammer backport details:
|
@miq-bot remove_label hammer/yes (forgot editing comments with miq-bot commands in them leads to this :)) |
It's not |
When creating a service template with a
Picture
that already exists (done in some of specs in other repos), the previous form of this method would break ascreate_picture
was not relevant for updating pictures that already exist.This fix #should™ fix that, but more relevant eyes should probably take a look just to make sure...
Where it fails...
Currently fails in the
manageiq-api
specs:Links
Steps for Testing/QA
Try running the API specs with and without this change to the models and confirm that it fails without, and passes with.