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

SqlAgDatabase: Typo in resource for fix for #1492 #1666

Merged
merged 43 commits into from
Jan 9, 2021

Conversation

Fiander
Copy link
Contributor

@Fiander Fiander commented Jan 8, 2021

Pull Request (PR) description

This Pull Request (PR) fixes the following issues

Fix #1492 Typo.
at row 450 was a typo.
$backupNeeded <> $needsBackup
$backupNeeded is correct, found thanks to @Jens-Sjolund
#1492 (comment)

Task list

  • Added an entry to the change log under the Unreleased section of the
    file CHANGELOG.md. Entry should say what was changed and how that
    affects users (if applicable), and reference the issue being resolved
    (if applicable).
  • Resource documentation updated in the resource's README.md.
  • Resource parameter descriptions updated in schema.mof.
  • Comment-based help updated, including parameter descriptions.
  • Localization strings updated.
  • Examples updated.
  • Unit tests updated. See DSC Community Testing Guidelines.
  • Integration tests updated (where possible). See DSC Community Testing Guidelines.
  • Code changes adheres to DSC Community Style Guidelines.

This change is Reviewable

@Fiander Fiander changed the title SqlAgDatabase Typo in resource for fix for #1492 SqlAgDatabase: Typo in resource for fix for #1492 Jan 8, 2021
Copy link
Member

@johlju johlju left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:lgtm:

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

@johlju
Copy link
Member

johlju commented Jan 8, 2021

Great catch of @Jens-Sjolund.

Seems we are missing a unit test to catch that scenario? We can look at that when we convert the tests to Pester 5. I merge this without a unit test for now. Thanks for fixing this @Fiander!

@johlju johlju added the ready for merge The pull request was approved by the community and is ready to be merged by a maintainer. label Jan 8, 2021
@Fiander
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fiander commented Jan 8, 2021

No problem, i did make the mistake, so why not fix it ?

@johlju can i edit the unit tests, to add a row where it states we mis a test for this scenario? else we might forget it

@johlju johlju changed the base branch from master to main January 8, 2021 15:44
@johlju
Copy link
Member

johlju commented Jan 8, 2021

@Fiander If you like, then please add a unit test that covers this scenario. 🙂

@johlju johlju added waiting for code fix A review left open comments, and the pull request is waiting for changes to be pushed by the author. and removed ready for merge The pull request was approved by the community and is ready to be merged by a maintainer. labels Jan 8, 2021
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 8, 2021

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (main@cb1917a). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #1666   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage        ?     97%           
======================================
  Files           ?      38           
  Lines           ?    6257           
  Branches        ?       0           
======================================
  Hits            ?    6100           
  Misses          ?     157           
  Partials        ?       0           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 97% <0%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

@Fiander
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fiander commented Jan 9, 2021

turns out, the test was already there, just not correct.
fixed the test

Copy link
Member

@johlju johlju left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:lgtm:

Awesome work @Fiander!

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r2.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

Copy link
Member

@johlju johlju left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

@johlju johlju merged commit 23b977c into dsccommunity:main Jan 9, 2021
@johlju johlju removed the waiting for code fix A review left open comments, and the pull request is waiting for changes to be pushed by the author. label Jan 9, 2021
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.

SqlAgDatabase: Failing when AG is Automatic Seeding
3 participants