[SDESK-7444] - Planning: Migrate planning:flag_expired command to async #2149
Conversation
|
@BrianMwangi21 there are some broken references to old |
BrianMwangi21
force-pushed
the
SDESK-7444
branch
from
b5508e5 to
5abc0d8
Compare
| "planning", | ||
| { | ||
| "p1": False, | ||
| "p2": False, | ||
| "p3": False, | ||
| "p4": False, | ||
| "p5": True, | ||
| "p6": False, | ||
| "p6": True, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering, why were p6 and p8 changed in the tests from False to True. Is there any logic or query that is not the same as the old code?
| self.assertExpired("planning", {"p1": False, "p2": False, "p3": False, "p4": True}) | ||
| await flag_expired_items_handler() | ||
| await self.assertExpired("events", {"e1": False, "e2": False, "e3": False, "e4": True}) | ||
| await self.assertExpired("planning", {"p1": False, "p2": False, "p3": True, "p4": True}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also here as well, why is p3 now True
|
Looks good @BrianMwangi21 👍 |
|
@BrianMwangi21 Looks like the changes to the test data is required, as the new async Planning service doesn't yet have all the functionality from the original service (which involved processing the Coverages and dates etc), which would be why these tests were failing before your test condition changes. We can look at this later once the async Planning service is updated |
|
@MarkLark86 this is noted. I've added a TODO on the test file on the same. |
Purpose
This PR updates the
planning:flag_expired commandcommand to async by:Solves SDESK-7444