Hi Rodric,
The complexity was not really in the code changes or in building it. But
more I trying to get my own environment up and running and check if it
worked with my own actions. But I have to admit I have not spent much
time on trying to set it up after my first attempt failed.
Adding the test scenario's was more like monkey see monkey do. I was
only surprised to see the tests separated from the code. But that is
probably due to the tests being integration test (initially I was
looking for unittests).
Since you tested my changes, I there anything I need to do to get these
changes accepted?
Regards,
misl
On 13-09-17 16:20, Rodric Rabbah wrote:
I ran your test for the fully qualified name after reviewing it and it
passes. Was your concern that writing the test was too hard or too coarse
grained to do?
It's true, it would be nice to just test the name resolution, as opposed
going through the entire flow and initializing/communicating with an actual
container.
If that's what you mean by "complex" - I think adding unit tests for the
Java proxy makes sense. +1
Otherwise, your test is fine. I made a small change locally just to be
paranoid.
https://github.com/rabbah/openwhisk/commit/7d6cf94fc587390ec97fe27313d352
62c38dfdc9
-r
