fix: faulty test logic #503
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
* Avoids possible false pass Co-Authored-By: Bruce Ricard <bricard@vmware.com>
|
|
|
@swalchemist : Do you need assistance with the CLA? |
davewalter
approved these changes
Mar 22, 2022
|
@jochenehret I have fixed the CLA issue - do we need to force a re-check in this PR, or close it and reissue a PR? |
|
@swalchemist Try closing it and re-opening it again. If that doesn't work, I would create a new PR from the branch. |
|
I'm going to try closing and reopening this PR to see if that helps. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Co-Authored-By: Bruce Ricard bricard@vmware.com
What is this change about?
Fixes what appears to be a typo in the logic that makes the test less effective than intended.
Please check all that apply for this PR:
Did you update the README as appropriate for this change?
If you are introducing a new acceptance test, what is your rationale for including it CATs rather than your own acceptance test suite?
CATs should validate common operator workflows.
CATs is not a regression test suite.
CATs is run by every component team to validate their releases before promotion.
How should this change be described in cf-acceptance-tests release notes?
Fixes what appears to be a typo in the logic that makes the test less effective than intended.
How many more (or fewer) seconds of runtime will this change introduce to CATs?
None.
What is the level of urgency for publishing this change?
Tag your pair, your PM, and/or team!
@bruce-ricard