Feature/dynamic tests #57
Conversation
…ntities dynamically
fix schema variable name typo #57
|
Hi @italojs could you resolve the conflicts here? |
|
@dalssoft could you finish your review, please? |
|
bug: the tests files are created on |
| │ ├── createUser.test.js | ||
| │ ├── deleteUser.js | ||
| │ ├── deleteUser.test.js | ||
| │ ├── deleteUser.js |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Honestly, I don't think it make any sense to put the dir tree in the doc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why not? I explains what is the final result that CLI generate, it's super explainable
| /*{ <%= props.request %> }*/ | ||
| const req = { nickname: 'herbsUser', password: 'V&eryStr0ngP@$$'} | ||
|
|
||
| const req = <%- props.request.valid %> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The generated value has multi lines and does not respect the spaces / tabs from the template.
Ex:
}
const req = {
nickname: 'string',
password: 'string'
}
// WhenThere was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking to resolve it after resolve this issue #14, so the linter will fix it for us
|
|
||
| it('should not delete the invalid <%= props.name.pascalCase %>', async () => { | ||
| // Given | ||
| const injection = {} | ||
| const user = aUser({ hasAccess: true }) | ||
| /*{ <%= props.request %> }*/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
bug:
/*{ [object Object] }*/
const req = { id : '5' }There was a problem hiding this comment.
sorry, could you explains a little bit more about the bug?
| const useCases = Object.keys(validUseCaseRequests) | ||
|
|
||
| const valueType = { | ||
| String: "'string'", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion: a text, intead of string
| const ret = await uc.run(req) | ||
|
|
||
| // Then | ||
| assert.ok(ret.isOk) | ||
| assert.strictEqual(ret.ok.nickname, 'herbsUser') | ||
| assert.strictEqual(ret.ok.isValid(), true) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
assert.strictEqual(ret.ok.isValid(), true)
this assertion does not belong to this scenario (and all other tests with the same assertion) given that this test scenario test for UC running ok, not if the returned entity is valid
| function aUser({ hasAccess }) { | ||
| return { hasAccess } | ||
| } | ||
| describe('Find one <%= props.name.raw %>', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There should be a test to cover the scenario form if (!result) return Err.notFound({
| function aUser({ hasAccess }) { | ||
| return { hasAccess } | ||
| } | ||
| describe('Update <%= props.name.raw %>', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There should be a test for if (!ctx.user.isValid()) return Err.invalidEntity({
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It will need to be implemented in the future because the if (!ctx.user.isValid()) return Err.invalidEntity({ validation is applied for entities that has fields validation, this PR don't contemplate it.
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.9.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Fixes #52
Proposed Changes
example/my-custom-entitiestoexample-entitiesnewfolderReadiness Checklist
Author/Contributor
Reviewing Maintainer
breakingif this is a large fundamental changeautomation,bug,documentation,enhancement,infrastructure, orperformance