-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
test handle service 2 container endpoints #122
Conversation
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.
Lintly has detected code quality issues in this pull request.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #122 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 84.13% 84.13%
========================================
Files 5 5
Lines 416 416
========================================
Hits 350 350
Misses 66 66 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
FILE_NAME = "mylittlefile" | ||
|
||
HS_URL = "http://localhost:8080" | ||
BLOB_URL = "https://ci.kbase.us/services/shock-api" |
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.
If you want to make this truly standalone you could add auth and the blobstore to the docker compose, similar to how the workspace does it with auth. Then you don't need a token. Maybe not enough ROI though.
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.
I think this is good for now. If you think is necessary, I can address this after I get myself unblocked from jgi-kbase/IDMappingService#140
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.
I'm ambivalent
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.
Lintly has detected code quality issues in this pull request.
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. One minor comment that isn't a big deal
max_attempts = len(WAIT_TIMES) + 1 | ||
while attempt <= max_attempts: | ||
print(f"Attempt {attempt} of {max_attempts}") | ||
hs = AbstractHandle(HS_URL) |
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.
You could move this out of the loop, no need to reconstruct it every time
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.
👍
Lintly doesn't seem to dismiss old reviews when it passes
No description provided.