-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
IBX-9810: Fixed inner validateProperty*()
calls of StructWrapperValidator
#521
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
IBX-9810: Fixed inner validateProperty*()
calls of StructWrapperValidator
#521
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.
Seems like something that is missing some test coverage.
validateProperty*()
calls of StructWrapperValidator
You can say that. But the Validator was never supposed to change behavior of the mentioned methods, only |
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.
Seems like something that is missing some test coverage.
You can say that. But the Validator was never supposed to change behavior of the mentioned methods, only
validate()
So the tests only testsvalidate()
method
The fact that now we have a customer request indicates that this is a part of a system, which, while simple, requires some test coverage. Lack on such tests on a consumption of Symfony components creates quite significant issue for me when I try to bump major Symfony version. If you don't add those tests, the next customer request might be about this not working again in Ibexa DXP 5.0, because there will be no mechanism to detect that. Ofc if that happens, that's gonna be for a different reason.
A proper bug fix should always include some test coverage, unless for some reason not possible. We need to improve on that.
I wasn't asking for much in the first place - just a usage that calls the code in question, with mocks. Given you've found existing test case, turns out I'm asking for even less - just add test coverage for missing methods, please.
6aa89da
to
7bad468
Compare
Tests added in 7bad468 |
Thank you for the approvals. |
…lidatePropertyValue()
42c15b1
to
c9027d1
Compare
Co-authored-by: Paweł Niedzielski <[email protected]>
|
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.
Verified with regression tests.
Description:
Looks like a a cut&paste mistake when implementing the
validateProperty()
andvalidatePropertyValue()
methods.For QA:
Documentation: