-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
[DB-14898] Adding validations for AssesmentIssues field of assessment report struct/json in the tests #2275
Conversation
@@ -893,7 +893,6 @@ normalize_json() { | |||
.OptimalInsertConnectionsPerNode? = "IGNORED" | | |||
.RowCount? = "IGNORED" | | |||
.FeatureDescription? = "IGNORED" | # Ignore FeatureDescription instead of fixing it in all tests since it will be removed soon | |||
.AssessmentIssues? = "IGNORED" | # Ignore AssessmentIssues until all tests are updated |
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.
PR title says cleanup of report struct but I don't see any code changes. Is that not included in this PR?
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.
Updated PR desc and jira ticket also
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.
There are two more schemas mgi
and rna
which are not in GH but in jenkins, I believe the expected files of those need to be updated as well
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.
oh ok is it under pg complex schemas? Rest of the PG tests in jenkins i ran and passed.
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.
Yes
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.
done
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.
LGTM
c72bac4
to
1ee2a50
Compare
Describe the changes in this pull request
https://yugabyte.atlassian.net/browse/DB-14898
Describe if there are any user-facing changes
NA
How was this pull request tested?
Updated all tests to include the new field and validate its value.
So passing of all PG and oracle tests can ensure this.
Does your PR have changes that can cause upgrade issues?