- Issue created by @tedbow
- Assigned to Akhil Babu
- Merge request !292Issues #3471028: Add test for 'Field is used in previous revision'. → (Merged) created by Akhil Babu
- 🇮🇳India Akhil Babu Chengannur
Ive added a test for validating the previous revisions. The test creates 3 revisions for the node. The link prop is used in the second revision. So, the exception message should contain '2' as the revision id.
The test works fine in local. But for some reason, revision id is coming as '1' in the exception message in gitlab ci and the test is failing... - Issue was unassigned.
- Status changed to Needs work
3 months ago 1:55am 13 September 2024 - 🇺🇸United States tedbow Ithaca, NY, USA
Setting to needs work since there is existing Merge Request.
@akhil babu Thanks for getting this started!
- First commit to issue fork.
- Assigned to deepakkm
- Assigned to tedbow
- 🇺🇸United States tedbow Ithaca, NY, USA
@deepakkm very close! Just a couple small things. I will fix those so we can get this MR merged quickly. Thanks!
- Issue was unassigned.
- Status changed to RTBC
3 months ago 2:15pm 19 September 2024 - 🇺🇸United States tedbow Ithaca, NY, USA
@deepakkm this looks good for the "Field is used in previous revision." case. Thanks!
I will merge if the tests pass
- Status changed to Needs work
3 months ago 3:13pm 19 September 2024 - 🇧🇪Belgium wim leers Ghent 🇧🇪🇪🇺
Only one of the 4 in the
@todo
s in the codebase and in the issue summary is done? 😅 - 🇮🇳India deepakkm
@tedbow Thanks for reviewing , @wim yes only 2 of them is done in this but as per discussion between me and ted this will go in pieces.
Once this MR is merged I’m going to open another MR for 1 of those tests. Hope that makes sense.And yes this shouldn’t be RTBC’ed 😜
-
tedbow →
committed 6fd89f0d on 0.x authored by
akhil babu →
Issue #3471028 by deepakkm, akhil babu, tedbow: Expand test coverage in...
-
tedbow →
committed 6fd89f0d on 0.x authored by
akhil babu →
- Assigned to deepakkm
- 🇺🇸United States tedbow Ithaca, NY, USA
@wim leers yep, sorry, I chatted with @deepakkm about this but forgot to update the summary.
I think we should commit each test case in their own MR to be practical. If we get just 1 done that is a win.
So will merge each as I review. will be clear next time which case is covered when RTBC and merge.
I just merged Field is used in previous revision.
I updated the descriptions of the other test cases
- 🇺🇸United States tedbow Ithaca, NY, USA
@deepakkm I suggest you take on Field used in multiple entities of different types next
- 🇧🇪Belgium wim leers Ghent 🇧🇪🇪🇺
I think we should commit each test case in their own MR to be practical. If we get just 1 done that is a win.
💯👏
Great call! 😄
- Merge request !319Issue #3471028: Add test for 'Field used in multiple entities of different types' → (Merged) created by deepakkm
- Merge request !332Draft: Resolve #3471028 "Expand test coverage module" → (Closed) created by deepakkm
- 🇮🇳India deepakkm
deepakkm → changed the visibility of the branch 3471028-Expand-test-coverage-module to hidden.
- 🇺🇸United States tedbow Ithaca, NY, USA
@deepakkm one more follow-up needs to be made, see https://git.drupalcode.org/project/experience_builder/-/merge_requests/3...
I also made another one you can work on also https://www.drupal.org/project/experience_builder/issues/3476891 🐛 FieldTypeUninstallValidator lists the same content revision 2x if it the default revision Active
I think this looks good. But want to review it with fresh eyes tomorrow
- 🇺🇸United States tedbow Ithaca, NY, USA
This looks good to me. Will merge if tests pass
-
tedbow →
committed 61ba9554 on 0.x authored by
deepakkm →
Issue #3471028 by deepakkm, tedbow, akhil babu: Expand test coverage in...
-
tedbow →
committed 61ba9554 on 0.x authored by
deepakkm →
- 🇮🇳India deepakkm
@tedbow - are we good to close this or do we need to work on the 4th issue i.e Test with field that does not use dedicated storage?
i know as per our discussion this was a very rare scenario and not as urgent as others. - 🇺🇸United States tedbow Ithaca, NY, USA
@deepakkm can you make the follow-up issue I asked for here https://git.drupalcode.org/project/experience_builder/-/merge_requests/3...
After that re #28 let's mark this issue postponed on 📌 Refactor the XB field type to be multi-valued, to de-jsonify the tree, and to reference the field_union type of the prop values Active because that is might change field storage, and probably make sense to postpone writing the remaining test case till after that is decided.
- 🇺🇸United States tedbow Ithaca, NY, USA
Created the follow-up 🐛 FieldTypeUninstallValidator's error message needs to include the entity type and bundle of the default value field Active
Postoning on 📌 Refactor the XB field type to be multi-valued, to de-jsonify the tree, and to reference the field_union type of the prop values Active since that might change on things are stored. This issue is still minor Priority. I think it got less important since we have covered 2 of the more likely cases in the tests that were already merged