-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
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
Geofencing feature file #181
Conversation
Geofencing feature file
Please @mdomale, edit the template with the right values |
@jlurien Added required details .Please let me know in case any further details are anticipated |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The test plan should test the scenarios listed in the guidelines for explicit subscriptions model:
For the explicit subscriptions model:
- Validate that the subscribed events are received in the sink, with the right sinkCredential, for those situations specified in the API.
- For subscriptions that provide subscriptionExpireTime, validate that the subscribed events are not longer received after the expiration time.
- For subscriptions that provide subscriptionMaxEvents, validate that the subscribed events are not longer received after the maximum events limit is reached.
- Validate that after a subscription is deleted, the subscribed events are not longer received.
The level of detail should be also in line with the guidelines. In general we need to be more precise about the Given steps to fill the request in order to generate the expected responses, and check also that the response object is the correct one, against schema or with some specific validation, not just the status code. Take a look to the examples for the other 2 APIs already merged.
Updated |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I still think that indicating that a request body is not available for operations that do not consider it is confusing. Moreover using the term "available", in that case even "request body is not sent" or "request body is not included" would be better options (but still no needed)
The rest of the proposal now seems quite acceptable to me. Thanks
|
||
@geofencing_subscriptions_02_Operation_to_retrieve_list_of_subscriptions | ||
Scenario: Get a list of subscriptions. | ||
Given the request body is not available |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Saying that a request body is not available for an operation without request body is not needed, as we don't mention that query parameters are not available, etc. Only createSubscription requires it.
The suggestion for a client with subscriptions created is to tell the tester that this method should be tested for a client with subscriptions, otherwise the response would be [], which could be another scenario to test
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
@jlurien @bigludo7 PR updated with required changes cc @akoshunyadi |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggestions ready to remove the unneeded references request body for get and delete, as applied already at the beginning.
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jose Luis Urien <jlurien@gmail.com>
@jlurien @bigludo7 PR updated with above suggestion cc @akoshunyadi |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks @mdomale and @akoshunyadi :) @bigludo7 please take a last look
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot @mdomale for the effort.
LGTM now
Geofencing feature file
What type of PR is this?
Add one of the following kinds:
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR is required for consideration of Feature file for Geofencing which includes all possible test scenarios
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
No specific issue available currently
Fixes #211
Special notes for reviewers:
Feature file with test scenarios
Changelog input
Additional documentation
This section can be blank.