-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 491
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
feat: conformance report summary field #2799
Conversation
f5ff512
to
bf09a10
Compare
Signed-off-by: Mattia Lavacca <lavacca.mattia@gmail.com>
bf09a10
to
e20f560
Compare
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.
Cool! Thanks for adding this @mlavacca
Signed-off-by: Mattia Lavacca <lavacca.mattia@gmail.com>
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 @mlavacca! I assume we've already tested this out on an implementation?
/approve
/cc @youngnick @robscott
Yes, this has been tested with the Kong Ingress Controller |
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.
haven't tested it out in a conformance report, but logic and added test cases LGTM
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mlavacca, shaneutt, sunjayBhatia The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Thanks @mlavacca! /lgtm |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
/area conformance
What this PR does / why we need it:
The conformance report
.profiles[*].summary
field is now automatically filled by the conformance test suite with a human-readable message about the outcome of the tests run.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #2235
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: