Feature/unit test without dml #223
Conversation
|
@wimvelzeboer would be nice to have org independent test classes to have a generic framework. Could you elaborate on which lines of code you specifically changed? For now I could only see syntax/spacing changes. Thanks! |
|
Yes agree with @foxcreation kinda hard to see the wood for the trees. Also i would maybe focus on just the changes for now. There is an outstanding issue to add PMD to this repo so we will have to agree what the formatting rules are and likely make changes anyway. Can I thus propose that you update this PR with just the key changes you need and thus for now its easier to review? |
wimvelzeboer
force-pushed
the
feature/UnitTestWithoutDML
branch
from
163704d
to
482c2c0
Compare
|
@foxcreation & @afawcett I removed a lot of the reformatting so that the actual changes are more clear. Hope this helps with the review. |
wimvelzeboer
force-pushed
the
feature/UnitTestWithoutDML
branch
2 times, most recently
from
bd53fad
to
c4d2ca1
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@wimvelzeboer nice changes and great to get rid of all inserts. Maybe we can move the test class to be inParallel as well?
@istest( isParallel = true )
|
@foxcreation Good idea! I have added it! |
wimvelzeboer
force-pushed
the
feature/UnitTestWithoutDML
branch
from
7fca073
to
4062861
Compare
|
@wimvelzeboer thank you! |
wimvelzeboer
dismissed stale reviews from afawcett and foxysolutions
via
0da9492
wimvelzeboer
force-pushed
the
feature/UnitTestWithoutDML
branch
from
4062861
to
0da9492
Compare
|
@afawcett @foxcreation @ImJohnMDaniel Please review again. I've rebased the branch again to resolve the merge conflict |
|
@wimvelzeboer apologies for the delay - looks good - added my review. cc @foxcreation @ImJohnMDaniel |
DML statement were removed from unit test to avoid failing tests
wimvelzeboer
dismissed stale reviews from foxysolutions and afawcett
via
ad8ad3a
wimvelzeboer
force-pushed
the
feature/UnitTestWithoutDML
branch
from
0da9492
to
ad8ad3a
Compare
|
@afawcett @foxysolutions @ImJohnMDaniel |
|
@afawcett @daveespo @ImJohnMDaniel I know that there is work going to be done on the QueryFactory in the Selector, but could we merge this PR in the mean time? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @afawcett and @daveespo)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1.
Reviewable status:complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @afawcett and @daveespo)
The Unit tests are failing from this fflib_QueryFactoryTest class on same Orgs. Especially when there are mandatory fields on the account, contact or task object.
Also did a bit of reformatting of the source code.
This change is