-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 885
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
Add 100% unit test coverage for annotation and label in pkg/util #5302
Add 100% unit test coverage for annotation and label in pkg/util #5302
Conversation
Welcome @NishantBansal2003! It looks like this is your first PR to karmada-io/karmada 🎉 |
90e458f
to
284175a
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #5302 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 28.36% 28.44% +0.08%
==========================================
Files 632 632
Lines 43774 43810 +36
==========================================
+ Hits 12416 12463 +47
+ Misses 30458 30446 -12
- Partials 900 901 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Hey @XiShanYongYe-Chang, |
Thanks @NishantBansal2003 |
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.
Thanks
5c4fd70
to
bae1842
Compare
Hey @XiShanYongYe-Chang, I fixed the issues, PTAL... |
@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ func TestRecordManagedAnnotations(t *testing.T) { | |||
}, | |||
}, | |||
{ | |||
name: "object has has annotations", |
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.
Good catch.
pkg/util/label_test.go
Outdated
if tt.args.labelKey == "" { | ||
RemoveLabels(tt.args.obj) | ||
} else { | ||
RemoveLabels(tt.args.obj, tt.args.labelKey) | ||
} |
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've given me a good reminder. I feel that the previous test method is not good. Maybe we can change labelKey
to labelKeys
, so that we can test labelKeys
of different lengths.
Like this:
RemoveLabels(tt.args.obj, tt,args.labelKeys...)
pkg/util/annotation_test.go
Outdated
if tt.args.key == "" { | ||
RemoveAnnotations(tt.args.obj) | ||
} else { | ||
RemoveAnnotations(tt.args.obj, tt.args.key) | ||
} |
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.
Same comment with #5302 (comment)
Signed-off-by: Nishant Bansal <[email protected]>
bae1842
to
5643f77
Compare
@XiShanYongYe-Chang PTAL... |
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.
Good job @NishantBansal2003
/lgtm
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: XiShanYongYe-Chang The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind failing-test
What this PR does / why we need it:
The test case coverage for annotation.go has been increased from 73.9% to 100% and for label.go has been increased from 97.8% to 100% .
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Ref #5235
Special notes for your reviewer:
To verify the changes in the pkg/util directory run the following commands:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: