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/dataprotection -- Tests & Docs #280

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Oct 25, 2023

Conversation

GilTeraSky
Copy link
Contributor

@GilTeraSky GilTeraSky commented Oct 3, 2023

  1. What this PR does / why we need it

    This PR is the final in the series of Data Protection resources task.
    It includes tests and docs for data protection enablement, target location and backup schedule resources and data sources.

  2. Which issue(s) this PR fixes

  3. Additional information

  4. Special notes for your reviewer

    For running the acceptance tests it is required to have 2 environment variables:
    TMC_MANAGED_CREDENTIALS_NAME - this variable should be a name of a TMC managed credentials which is required for
    running the tests. Although it is possible to create a TMC managed credentials via the resource, there is a necessity for the
    credentials to include a valid IAM role because when creating a target location with this type of credentials it fails if the IAM
    role doesn't have permissions.

    AZURE_CREDENTIALS_NAME - this variable should be a name of a azure self provisioned credentials which is required for
    running the tests. It is not supported creating azure self provisioned credentials for data protection use case.

@GilTeraSky GilTeraSky changed the title Feat/dataprotection tests docs Feat/dataprotection -- Tests & Docs Oct 3, 2023
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Oct 3, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: 4 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (d698e14) 25.41% compared to head (1f1dee6) 25.40%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                   Coverage Diff                   @@
##           feat/dataprotection     #280      +/-   ##
=======================================================
- Coverage                25.41%   25.40%   -0.01%     
=======================================================
  Files                      155      155              
  Lines                    13601    13605       +4     
=======================================================
  Hits                      3457     3457              
- Misses                    9987     9991       +4     
  Partials                   157      157              
Files Coverage Δ
internal/helper/handler_context.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

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

@vmwclabot
Copy link
Member

@GilTeraSky, you must sign every commit in this pull request acknowledging our Developer Certificate of Origin before your changes are merged. This can be done by adding Signed-off-by: John Doe <[email protected]> to the last line of each Git commit message. The e-mail address used to sign must match the e-mail address of the Git author. Click here to view the Developer Certificate of Origin agreement.

@vmwclabot vmwclabot added the dco-required DCO Required label Oct 4, 2023
@GilTeraSky GilTeraSky force-pushed the feat/dataprotection-tests-docs branch from c1cb319 to f75f923 Compare October 4, 2023 04:03
@vmwclabot
Copy link
Member

@GilTeraSky, you must sign every commit in this pull request acknowledging our Developer Certificate of Origin before your changes are merged. This can be done by adding Signed-off-by: John Doe <[email protected]> to the last line of each Git commit message. The e-mail address used to sign must match the e-mail address of the Git author. Click here to view the Developer Certificate of Origin agreement.

@GilTeraSky GilTeraSky force-pushed the feat/dataprotection-tests-docs branch from f75f923 to 50b013f Compare October 4, 2023 04:05
@vmwclabot vmwclabot removed the dco-required DCO Required label Oct 4, 2023
@GilTeraSky GilTeraSky force-pushed the feat/dataprotection-tests-docs branch from 8b16489 to d5a88cf Compare October 4, 2023 12:25
@GilTeraSky GilTeraSky force-pushed the feat/dataprotection-tests-docs branch from a8e8301 to 802e37a Compare October 11, 2023 09:17
@GilTeraSky GilTeraSky force-pushed the feat/dataprotection-tests-docs branch from 67b3081 to 24fe64a Compare October 17, 2023 15:37
Copy link

@vrabbi vrabbi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Signed-off-by: GilTS <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@ramya-bangera ramya-bangera left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@GilTeraSky - Add mock tests too for data protection feature, you can refer akscluster resource, but you can take it up after utkg work

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
terraform {
required_providers {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a usage for this file?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I put this in the folder so it will be easy to test from this folder, should I remove it?

@GilTeraSky
Copy link
Contributor Author

@GilTeraSky - Add mock tests too for data protection feature, you can refer akscluster resource, but you can take it up after utkg work

We already agreed that with the Converter there is no need to mock anything and we should add tests for the converter in the future by me or someone else.

@GilTeraSky GilTeraSky merged commit 12ca9aa into feat/dataprotection Oct 25, 2023
@GilTeraSky GilTeraSky deleted the feat/dataprotection-tests-docs branch October 25, 2023 10:08
@ramya-bangera
Copy link
Contributor

We already agreed

When I say mock test, it Is mimicking the server with custom request/response so that we can cover even edge cases which we usually can't cover with the actual server. let me know if need more details

Copy link

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 15, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants