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

Loosen state check #18003

Closed

Conversation

gosusnp
Copy link
Contributor

@gosusnp gosusnp commented Oct 14, 2022

What

In testSyncAfterUpgradeToPerStreamState, only check some expected keys as it is not relevant to have to maintain the whole expected state from a connector in that part of our test suite.

@gosusnp gosusnp temporarily deployed to more-secrets October 14, 2022 17:50 Inactive
}

// Verify that actual contains expected all the (key, value) from expected.
private void assertStateContains(final JsonNode expected, final JsonNode actual) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't understand why we allow extra.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe let's merge it to unlock Michael but we should revisit and also make sure that the platform is buildfor any change to the PG connectors

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

#15535 add new fields to the state, if possible, it would be nice to not have a hard check on the exact content of the state in the platform.

Copy link
Contributor

@mfsiega-airbyte mfsiega-airbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would say if the checks pass, ship it.

I'd have to think more to have an opinion on the best way to do this -- e.g. whether it's appropriate to tolerate unexpected fields in these tests? -- but IMO we can discuss that when the build is passing.

@gosusnp
Copy link
Contributor Author

gosusnp commented Oct 14, 2022

Holding off to this in favor of #18005

@gosusnp gosusnp closed this Mar 23, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants