-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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-Only] Refactored some oC10 bug demonstration scenarios in api test #37974
Conversation
I will rebase... - done. |
1c20a02
to
26834f8
Compare
aaefb7f
to
6cd69ac
Compare
The scenarios need to be around the other way - the bug-demo scenario should be in the separate file, and the "good" scenario should be in the main feature file. Some of the scenarios are tagged both I am looking and refactoring - it should be just a matter of switching scenarios around, and adjusting the tags. |
2f57133
to
fe41b1d
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #37974 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 64.70% 64.70% -0.01%
Complexity 19445 19445
============================================
Files 1286 1286
Lines 76032 76034 +2
Branches 1336 1336
============================================
Hits 49196 49196
- Misses 26442 26444 +2
Partials 394 394
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
fe41b1d
to
f64ff1b
Compare
Description
Refactored some API test scenarios demonstrating the actual behaviors. New scenarios demonstrating bugs in Oc10 are tagged
skipOnOcV10
since these show the expected behavior andnotToImplementOnOCIS
because it only demonstrates an oC10 bug. Features files containing these new scenarios have been named with respect to the issue that it demonstrates.Related Issue
How Has This Been Tested?
Types of changes
Checklist: