-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.8k
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(e2e): Devices E2E tests #12997
feat(e2e): Devices E2E tests #12997
Conversation
…/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net into feature/iot/azabbasi/deviceTests
@@ -24,40 +26,37 @@ public async Task RunSampleAsync() | |||
string moduleId = $"module{Random.Next(MaxRandomValue)}"; | |||
|
|||
// Create a DeviceIdentity. | |||
DeviceIdentity deviceIdentity = await CreateDeviceIdentityAsync(deviceId); | |||
await CreateDeviceIdentityAsync(deviceId); | |||
|
|||
// Create a ModuleIdentity. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are these comments really adding anything? Seems like they could be removed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think they can help follow the logic of the test ... why remove them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't they seem a bit redundant? "// Create a DeviceIdentity" doesn't add anything that "CreateDeviceIdentityAsync(...)" hasn't already said
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am sorry, I am going to have to disagree, I think comments in code are useful for future authors of the code. They may seem redundant, but I don't see any harm in having step by step comments in the code even though the action can be identified by the code. if we follow that logic, all comments in code are redundant. am I making sense? One can argue that code comments are suppose to explain the reasoning behind the logic that was employed in the code, but they are also suppose to help follow what is happening in the block of code.
int matchesFound = 0; | ||
DateTimeOffset startTime = DateTime.UtcNow; | ||
|
||
while (DateTime.UtcNow - startTime < _queryMaxWaitTime) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm a little confused. Is this loop here because the devices are not immediately queryable after the bulk creation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If so, that may be worth adding a comment for
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You are correct. There are comments on line 304
* feat(hub): Creating a new feature branch with swagger and generated files * fix(doc): Fix markdown for API design doc (#11690) * swagger(iothub): Adding overrides for type names (#12026) * fix(tests): Fix project reference for the test framework (#12053) * fix(hub): Fix property accessibility issue (#12055) * Fix API categories for iothub service client (#12087) * swagger(iothub): Swagger comment changes (#12149) * fix(iot): Regenerate iothub PL after rebase from master * refactor(iot): Remove unnecessary custom code This class only existed to make the DigitalTwinClient internal, but now all generated clients are internal by default * Swagger changes for Iot Hub (#12218) * Revert swagger back to what is currently deployed This swagger should never be hand edited. We can update it only when service accepts the changes * Add composite swagger file with all suggested changes for service to make read only, required params, and comment refactors. OperationId changes will go in here, too * Regenerate PL with the currently deployed swagger * Update models to rename CloudToDeviceMethod and CloudToDeviceMethodResult (#12240) * Modules API design (#12188) * Add IoTHub Devices subclient APIs * Swagger changes for Client grouping (#12245) * Add suggested type name changes to iothub swagger (#12296) * Service Client CL and client grouping (#12323) * Small API design comments fix * feat(autorest): Generated clients from autorest after sync with master * Add implementation for Devices APIs (#12611) * (feat): Implement Modules client (#12673) * feat(tests): Add test infrastructure and setup.ps1 for local setup (#12719) * Add test infrastructure and setup * Add common files, remove specific sub (#12722) * fix(swagger): Fix IotHub swagger descriptions (#12695) * fix(pipeline): Update setup script to call test-resources ARM template directly (#12775) * feat(samples): Samples project skeleton (#12787) * IoT hub service client authentication via connection string (#12731) * feat(e2e-tests): Add initial setup for E2E tests * feat(iot-service): Add authentication via connection string * fix(iot-service): Fix merge conflict in infrastructure setup file (#12803) Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]> * feat(tests): Changes to fix tests and make sure we can run them successfully. (#12819) * Start recording tests and add intial Session recording (#12827) * feat(samples): Initial CREATE/DELETE sample for ModuleI (#12850) * feat(samples): Finish Modules samples (#12989) * feat(e2e): Devices E2E tests (#12997) * Update the logic for ETags and preconditions (#13046) * Fix the CI and test pipelines. (#13091) Co-authored-by: abhipds <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: vinagesh <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: timtay-microsoft <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bikamani <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sindhu Nagesh <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>
* feat(hub): Creating a new feature branch with swagger and generated files * fix(doc): Fix markdown for API design doc (#11690) * swagger(iothub): Adding overrides for type names (#12026) * fix(tests): Fix project reference for the test framework (#12053) * fix(hub): Fix property accessibility issue (#12055) * Fix API categories for iothub service client (#12087) * swagger(iothub): Swagger comment changes (#12149) * fix(iot): Regenerate iothub PL after rebase from master * refactor(iot): Remove unnecessary custom code This class only existed to make the DigitalTwinClient internal, but now all generated clients are internal by default * Swagger changes for Iot Hub (#12218) * Revert swagger back to what is currently deployed This swagger should never be hand edited. We can update it only when service accepts the changes * Add composite swagger file with all suggested changes for service to make read only, required params, and comment refactors. OperationId changes will go in here, too * Regenerate PL with the currently deployed swagger * Update models to rename CloudToDeviceMethod and CloudToDeviceMethodResult (#12240) * Modules API design (#12188) * Add IoTHub Devices subclient APIs * Swagger changes for Client grouping (#12245) * Add suggested type name changes to iothub swagger (#12296) * Service Client CL and client grouping (#12323) * Small API design comments fix * feat(autorest): Generated clients from autorest after sync with master * Add implementation for Devices APIs (#12611) * (feat): Implement Modules client (#12673) * feat(tests): Add test infrastructure and setup.ps1 for local setup (#12719) * Add test infrastructure and setup * Add common files, remove specific sub (#12722) * fix(swagger): Fix IotHub swagger descriptions (#12695) * fix(pipeline): Update setup script to call test-resources ARM template directly (#12775) * feat(samples): Samples project skeleton (#12787) * IoT hub service client authentication via connection string (#12731) * feat(e2e-tests): Add initial setup for E2E tests * feat(iot-service): Add authentication via connection string * fix(iot-service): Fix merge conflict in infrastructure setup file (#12803) Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]> * feat(tests): Changes to fix tests and make sure we can run them successfully. (#12819) * Start recording tests and add intial Session recording (#12827) * feat(samples): Initial CREATE/DELETE sample for ModuleI (#12850) * feat(samples): Finish Modules samples (#12989) * feat(e2e): Devices E2E tests (#12997) * Update the logic for ETags and preconditions (#13046) * Fix the CI and test pipelines. (#13091) Co-authored-by: abhipds <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: vinagesh <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: timtay-microsoft <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bikamani <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sindhu Nagesh <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>
No description provided.