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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Validate Node Name #48
Validate Node Name #48
Changes from 3 commits
91969cf
5b00731
eec5f74
97e101d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Nit: using function names in Ginkgo's node description makes it harder to understand what the test is verifying.
For example, in this context, it might be just "Check CR name against node"
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.
Ok, do you have a suggestion for better naming?
I see a small value of testing the 2 functions in UT, but it does catch errors when I do small changes in them (or their dependencies)
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.
For example, in this context, it might be just "Check CR name against node"
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 see, then I tend to let the context just be the function name (
buildFenceAgentParams
), and just remove the- check CR name
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.
not super important, but this would be less future-proof IMHO
If you change function name,
or signature, you shall then change the test tooInstead, testing a behavior, whatever the implementation is, should always be valid also in the future
EDIT: I removed "change signature", which cannot be future proof, ofc XD
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.
Indeed, checking behavior rather than a function (by it's name) seems more right.
Something to think off for next PRs and writing UTs