Skip to content
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

tests(smokehouse): fix unintentional 404. remove max-len rule for expectations #9665

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Sep 17, 2019

Conversation

connorjclark
Copy link
Collaborator

@connorjclark connorjclark commented Sep 13, 2019

bug from this change: #5006

the path was mistranslated

i also expanded the console expectations to be an explicit array, because {length: x} is smoky garbage for debugging

Copy link
Member

@exterkamp exterkamp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lol sharing in the pain of smoke testing arcana.

@connorjclark
Copy link
Collaborator Author

image

image

yaaaaa we shouldn't have line limits in these files.

@connorjclark connorjclark changed the title tests(smoke): fix unintentional resource 404 tests(smoke): fix unintentional resource 404. remove max-len rule for expectations Sep 13, 2019
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
<!-- Note: these will only fail when using the static-server.js, which supports the ?delay=true param.
If you're using your own server, the resource will load instantly and the
stylesheets will be ignored for being below the threshold. -->
<link rel="stylesheet" href="./dobetterweb/dbw_tester.css?delay=100"> <!-- FAIL, when run under smokehouse -->
<link rel="stylesheet" href="./dbw_tester.css?delay=100"> <!-- FAIL, when run under smokehouse -->
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

anyone know what FAIL, when run under smokehouse is alluding to? when would this pass? Should I just replace with FAIL?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

also, I wish we put the audit id that these failed for.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it's referring to the Note: above, this will fail but only when run under smokehouse and not a generic static file server

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

personally I think all this caveat is nonsense at this point because like half of smokehouse would be different if not run in our custom server, so 🤷‍♂

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree. if mentioned at all, it should be noted in a README describing how these smoke tests work. i'll leave as-is for a follow up.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

also, I wish we put the audit id that these failed for.

is it possible to check this and add a note since it's being changed anyways? Presumably by the comment something currently failing should pass if there isn't a delay

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it actually didn't really fail anything (only failures were b/c the name changes) ...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it actually didn't really fail anything (only failures were b/c the name changes) ...

make sense to remove the <!-- FAIL, when run under smokehouse --> then?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ya done

@connorjclark connorjclark changed the title tests(smoke): fix unintentional resource 404. remove max-len rule for expectations tests(smokehouse): fix unintentional resource 404. remove max-len rule for expectations Sep 13, 2019
@connorjclark connorjclark changed the title tests(smokehouse): fix unintentional resource 404. remove max-len rule for expectations tests(smokehouse): fix unintentional 404. remove max-len rule for expectations Sep 13, 2019
@@ -73,6 +73,14 @@ module.exports = {
'valid-jsdoc': 0,
'arrow-parens': 0,
},
overrides: [
{
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you add a comment to this block so it's clearer what it's for?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

narrowing seems to make it self documenting

.eslintrc.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
<!-- Note: these will only fail when using the static-server.js, which supports the ?delay=true param.
If you're using your own server, the resource will load instantly and the
stylesheets will be ignored for being below the threshold. -->
<link rel="stylesheet" href="./dobetterweb/dbw_tester.css?delay=100"> <!-- FAIL, when run under smokehouse -->
<link rel="stylesheet" href="./dbw_tester.css?delay=100"> <!-- FAIL, when run under smokehouse -->
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

also, I wish we put the audit id that these failed for.

is it possible to check this and add a note since it's being changed anyways? Presumably by the comment something currently failing should pass if there isn't a delay

Copy link
Member

@brendankenny brendankenny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants