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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Feat/e2e testgroup multiclient #659

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

Feat/e2e testgroup multiclient #659

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

mikeplotean
Copy link
Contributor

@mikeplotean mikeplotean commented Jul 31, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Description

Provide a clear and concise description of the changes made in this pull request.

Fixes WAL-311

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • This change requires a documentation update

Checklist

  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests
  • Do we need to implement analytics?
  • Will this be part of a product update? If yes, please write one phrase about this update.
  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

@sonarcloud SonarCloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Jul 31, 2024

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

@mikeplotean
Copy link
Contributor Author

will merge after #658

@mikeplotean mikeplotean mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2024
Closed
3 tasks
@mikeplotean
fix: cleanup and fix e2e tests
b677dc2
@mikeplotean
fix: add more individual tests
4e500b4 
# Conflicts:
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/IssuerApi.kt
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/VerifierApi.kt

# Conflicts:
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/E2ETest.kt
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/E2ETestWebService.kt
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/ExchangeApi.kt
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/IssuerApi.kt
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/VerifierApi.kt
@mikeplotean
feat: allow e2e tests to run against docker-compose or other external…
9540847 
…ly hosted instances

# Conflicts:
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/E2ETest.kt
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/ExchangeApi.kt
@mikeplotean
fix: e2e tests
18eb4dd 
# Conflicts:
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/E2ETest.kt
#	waltid-services/waltid-e2e-tests/src/test/kotlin/ExchangeApi.kt
@mikeplotean
Copy link
Contributor Author

WAL-311

@sonarcloud SonarCloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Sep 25, 2024

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

@waltkb
Copy link
Contributor

waltkb commented Sep 26, 2024

Hi @mikeplotean, can this be reviewed now (as 643 was merged a couple days ago)?

waltkb
waltkb approved these changes Sep 26, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@waltkb waltkb 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, I especially like that the output: () -> Unit callbacks could be simplified to just returning the value and the test blocks are handled by the caller instead of inside the check function. Great work!

@mikeplotean
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @mikeplotean, can this be reviewed now (as 643 was merged a couple days ago)?

will have to fix the conflicts and will put it back to ready for review

@mikeplotean
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks good, I especially like that the output: () -> Unit callbacks could be simplified to just returning the value and the test blocks are handled by the caller instead of inside the check function. Great work!

actually, these are all changes made by you
I appear as the committer only because I solved the conflicts with rebase :D

@mikeplotean mikeplotean marked this pull request as draft September 27, 2024 19:49
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

This pull request has been marked as stale.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Nov 26, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Dec 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@waltkb waltkb waltkb approved these changes

@cpatsonakis cpatsonakis Awaiting requested review from cpatsonakis

@severinstampler severinstampler Awaiting requested review from severinstampler

@chsavvaidis chsavvaidis Awaiting requested review from chsavvaidis

@philpotisk philpotisk Awaiting requested review from philpotisk

Assignees

@mikeplotean mikeplotean

Labels
Stale
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@mikeplotean @waltkb