Skip to content

Conversation

Prashansa-K
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented May 27, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 28.30%. Comparing base (c409312) to head (35b8511).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
tests/integration/test_utils.go 0.00% 10 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1645      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   28.34%   28.30%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          67       67              
  Lines        6912     6922      +10     
==========================================
  Hits         1959     1959              
- Misses       4811     4821      +10     
  Partials      142      142              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@Prashansa-K Prashansa-K requested a review from harshadixit12 May 27, 2025 06:36
@Prashansa-K
Copy link
Contributor Author

In touch with Konnect team to clarify the difference in ordering and input validation: https://kongstrong.slack.com/archives/CQK8J4VN3/p1748328003725309

@Prashansa-K Prashansa-K removed the request for review from harshadixit12 May 27, 2025 07:50
@Prashansa-K Prashansa-K requested a review from harshadixit12 May 27, 2025 08:02
@@ -527,3 +527,73 @@ func Test_Dump_ConsumerGroupPlugin_PolicyOverrides(t *testing.T) {
})
}
}

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lets add the test scope comment?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have added the scope in both of the tests. Not sure why the diff is not catching it.
You can check the change while viewing the entire file though:

// - >=3.1.0

@@ -8290,3 +8290,149 @@ func Test_Sync_Scoped_Plugins_Check_Conflicts(t *testing.T) {
})
}
}

// test scope:
//
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Extra line?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not extra. We leave one in the middle before adding the scope.

@harshadixit12
Copy link
Contributor

couple of nitpicks, but otherwise lgtm

@Prashansa-K Prashansa-K requested a review from harshadixit12 May 28, 2025 07:41
@Prashansa-K Prashansa-K merged commit 74c7c6c into main May 28, 2025
24 checks passed
@Prashansa-K Prashansa-K deleted the feat/keys-keysets branch May 28, 2025 08:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants