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

[YUNIKORN-2797] Increase handlers.go test coverage #970

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

ryankert01
Copy link
Contributor

What is this PR for?

Increase test coverage and some refactor.

What type of PR is it?

  • - Bug Fix
  • - Improvement
  • - Feature
  • - Documentation
  • - Hot Fix
  • - Refactoring

Todos

  • - Task

What is the Jira issue?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-2797

How should this be tested?

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Questions:

  • - The licenses files need update.
  • - There is breaking changes for older versions.
  • - It needs documentation.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 16, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.05%. Comparing base (89348e6) to head (9bddd39).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #970      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.95%   81.05%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files          97       97              
  Lines       12525    12525              
==========================================
+ Hits        10139    10152      +13     
+ Misses       2116     2103      -13     
  Partials      270      270              

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

pkg/webservice/handlers_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/webservice/handlers_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@manirajv06 manirajv06 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks good. Will merge after successful run.

@ryankert01
Copy link
Contributor Author

ryankert01 commented Sep 18, 2024

I got it! We shouldn't assert statusOK in this function's test because the tested function will not set statusOK in the slope.

@manirajv06
Copy link
Contributor

I got it! We shouldn't assert statusOK in this function's test because the tested function will not set statusOK in the slope.

It should other way around, not equal to StatusInternalServerError. Anyways, not a problem.

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.

3 participants