feat(e2e): Devices E2E tests #12997
Merged
feat(e2e): Devices E2E tests #12997
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
azabbasi
changed the title
azabbasi
requested review from
abhipsaMisra,
barustum,
bikamani,
drwill-ms,
KrzysztofCwalina,
pakrym,
prmathur-microsoft,
tg-msft,
timtay-microsoft and
vinagesh
as code owners
…/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.
Are these comments really adding anything? Seems like they could be removed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think they can help follow the logic of the test ... why remove them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
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.
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.
If so, that may be worth adding a comment for
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are correct. There are comments on line 304
timtay-microsoft
approved these changes
Jun 25, 2020
azabbasi
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2020
* 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]>
prmathur-microsoft
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2020
* 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]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.