DEVEXP-530: Conversation e2e tests (Apps) #135
Conversation
JPPortier
requested review from
Dovchik,
650elx,
krogers0607 and
asein-sinch
as code owners
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues found.Snapshot WarningsEnsure that dependencies are being submitted on PR branches and consider enabling retry-on-snapshot-warnings. See the documentation for more information and troubleshooting advice. Scanned Manifest Files.github/workflows/build.yml
pom.xml
.github/workflows/maven.yml
|
| Assertions.assertTrue(deletePassed); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| void checkExpectedAppResponseCommonFields(AppResponse appResponse) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a nice idea to factorize the check on common fields. But some tests can break if we change some data in the mockserver expectations. I've tried to create some consistency when I wrote them. Let's agree together to keep it like this!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
According to our discussion: we agree to update tests accordingly in case of future change
| public void delete() { | ||
|
|
||
| service.delete("foo"); | ||
| deletePassed = true; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here you are just checking that the request completed without exception right?
Note that if we decide to move to static values instead of regexp for parameter matching, this test will fail as foo is certainly not a value corresponding to an appId. You may reuse the one tou are already checking in the common fields
There was a problem hiding this comment.
According to our discussion: we agree to update tests accordingly in case of future change
Based onto Cucumber and Sinch SDK MockServer: e2e for Conversation/Apps
(
build.ymlappear as a new file but it was renamed and enhanced)Notes: runing tests in multithreading mode based onto a single SinchClient instance
Tests output: