Update patch set 2
Patch Set 2: Code-Review-1 (1 comment) Patch-set: 2 Reviewer: Gerrit User 28609 <28609@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543> Label: Code-Review=-1, 8908644768e1bf29ec097708f38e7a6b75f13da1 Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 11628 \u003c11628@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_28609\u003e replied on the change"}
This commit is contained in:
parent
b19898df9c
commit
b4a41884cf
|
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"comments": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": false,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "7e26d5b8_6ca79004",
|
||||
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 0,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 28609
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2023-04-18T10:43:01Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "Hi Michael!\n \nThe \"test_update_records_propagated_to_backends\" in its current manner is testing the exactly a SAME LOGIC for various record types provided by ddt module, so what is wrong in having a single idempotent ID for all? 😕\n\nIn case of failure we could just improve the Error message logged by adding the type in: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/designate-tempest-plugin/+/880681/2/designate_tempest_plugin/tests/scenario/v2/test_recordsets.py#b168\nSuch an \"ddt unrolling\" increases the numbers of code lines and I\u0027m not sure it worth.\n\nBTW we have a similar implementation in other places, for example:\nhttps://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/designate-tempest-plugin/+/880681/2/designate_tempest_plugin/tests/scenario/v2/test_recordsets.py#86\nAlso some APIs test doing the same.\n\nThanks!",
|
||||
"revId": "a5ba980ef4840a13032098bc583d556bbdef2b94",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue