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

Remove reflected values from validation tests #1622

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 23, 2023

Conversation

srchase
Copy link
Contributor

@srchase srchase commented Feb 16, 2023

This PR updates the validation protocol tests to remove the input value from being returned in the validation message.

It also adds coverage for uniqueItems validation.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

@srchase srchase force-pushed the validation-value-reflection branch from 85e6d56 to e0df073 Compare February 18, 2023 00:22
@srchase srchase merged commit 4ca6b94 into smithy-lang:main Feb 23, 2023
@srchase srchase deleted the validation-value-reflection branch February 23, 2023 16:33
mediaType: "application/json",
assertion: {
contents: """
{ "message" : "1 validation error detected. Value with repeated values at '/blobList' failed to satisfy constraint: Member must have unique values",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Noticed this in https://github.com/awslabs/smithy-typescript/pull/695/files#r1119201953. This reads odd. Was ok when it was Value [80, 80] with repeated values at '/test'.... But now, probably better to say Value at 'test'... similar to the other messages.

@jjant
Copy link
Contributor

jjant commented Mar 16, 2023

@gosar
Copy link
Contributor

gosar commented Mar 17, 2023

This change broke a bunch of our (smithy-rs's) protocol tests when upgrading to smithy 1.28.1.

@jjant yeah we anticipated this might break existing tests, but sorry we forgot to give you the heads up.

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.

4 participants