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

feat: set id #250

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Apr 8, 2024
Merged

feat: set id #250

merged 8 commits into from
Apr 8, 2024

Conversation

arifBurakDemiray
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 21, 2024

Unit Test Results 🚀

445 tests  +5   444 ✅ +4   1m 18s ⏱️ +2s
 34 suites ±0     0 💤 ±0 
 34 files   ±0     1 ❌ +1 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 4f878b1. ± Comparison against base commit 04894bf.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

validateDeviceIdWithMergeChange(oldDeviceId, 1, 2);
TestUtils.flushCurrentRQWithOldDeviceId(oldDeviceId); // clean current rq with old device id requests

deviceID.value += "1";
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

still necessary?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

well It is a little bit complicated validation. Because it is atomic it needed that way but I can set it more readeble

Assert.assertEquals(0, TestUtils.getCurrentEQ().size()); // size should change because it is not a merge request

Assert.assertEquals(2, callCount.get());
validateDeviceIdWithoutMergeChange(3, TestUtils.DEVICE_ID, false); // there should be 1 began, 1 events request
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this correct?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it is, did not it seem correct?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yeap gives an error when I run

@AliRKat AliRKat requested a review from turtledreams March 26, 2024 09:24
Copy link
Contributor

@turtledreams turtledreams left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

cooked enough

@ArtursKadikis ArtursKadikis merged commit c6db766 into staging Apr 8, 2024
3 of 5 checks passed
@ArtursKadikis ArtursKadikis deleted the setid branch April 8, 2024 08:16
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