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

Moved the modified reference server from the unit test to its own file #2725

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ThomasNehring
Copy link
Contributor

Also moved the modified (server side) session, the modified session manager and the modified master node manager to the same file.

Proposed changes

The unit test ContinuationPointInBatchTest was developed together with a modified reference server which allows to change the limit for (browse) ContinuationPoints during the test.
To allow easier reuse of this modified reference server and to make the unit test better readable, the modified reference server is now moved into it's own file.

Related Issues

  • Fixes # (n/a)

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce?
Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR.

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Enhancement (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Test enhancement (non-breaking change to increase test coverage)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected, requires version increase of Nuget packages)
  • Documentation Update (if none of the other choices apply)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc.
  • I have signed the CLA.
  • I ran tests locally with my changes, all passed.
  • I fixed all failing tests in the CI pipelines.
  • I fixed all introduced issues with CodeQL and LGTM.
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works and increased code coverage.
  • I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate).
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules.

Further comments

If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc...

…e. Also moved the modified server side session, the modified session manager and the modified master node manager to the same file.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 19, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 54.77%. Comparing base (6291ed6) to head (63ced91).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2725      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   54.75%   54.77%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         349      349              
  Lines       65866    65866              
  Branches    13493    13493              
==========================================
+ Hits        36067    36080      +13     
+ Misses      25886    25878       -8     
+ Partials     3913     3908       -5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@mregen
Copy link
Contributor

mregen commented Aug 26, 2024

@ThomasNehring please merge with master to ensure latest changes were captured

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.

2 participants