[#469] fix encryption ITs for changed MDA model #476
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Part of the encryption IT scenarios were checking that the right number of fields were retrieved by the `get_field_list` method. I'm not sure that this makes sense as an encryption test. Either the encryption method (which uses `get_field_list`) encrypts fields correctly, or it doesn't. I don't see a ton of value in testing that method specifically over the actual encryption tests which indirectly test `get_field_list`. This changeset also splits off the vault scenarios into a separate feature, as those are the only real "IT" scenarios. We can't just tag the scenarios directly because the feature-level tag is used to determine whether we should stand up the Vault image, and we can't base this logic at the scenario level because that would tear down and deploy Vault between each scenario, which is wasteful since we aren't changing the state of Vault between scenarios.
ewilkins-csi
commented
Nov 19, 2024
| Feature: Data encryption | ||
| # Generated sample BDD specification/feature file - PLEASE ***DO*** MODIFY. | ||
| # Originally generated from templates/behave.feature.vm. | ||
|
|
||
| Scenario: Get fields from native inbound collection with inbound record type (set([CustomData])) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I: Removed scenarios that I felt were redundant and overly fine-grained/brittle. If there is a strong feeling that these are useful we can discuss keeping them and just fixing the assertion to account for the model changes.
cwoods-cpointe
approved these changes
Nov 19, 2024
chang-annie
approved these changes
Nov 19, 2024
meliz19
approved these changes
Nov 19, 2024
carter-cundiff
approved these changes
Nov 19, 2024
Closed
14 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Part of the encryption IT scenarios were checking that the right number of fields were retrieved by the
get_field_listmethod. I'm not sure that this makes sense as an encryption test. Either the encryption method (which usesget_field_list) encrypts fields correctly, or it doesn't. I don't see a ton of value in testing that method specifically over the actual encryption tests which indirectly testget_field_list.This changeset also splits off the vault scenarios into a separate feature, as those are the only real "IT" scenarios. We can't just tag the scenarios directly because the feature-level tag is used to determine whether we should stand up the Vault image, and we can't base this logic at the scenario level because that would tear down and deploy Vault between each scenario, which is wasteful since we aren't changing the state of Vault between scenarios.