Skip to content
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

test: add runtime objects per step in e2e #782

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

matmerr
Copy link
Member

@matmerr matmerr commented Sep 25, 2024

Description

Satisfy the need to pass structs between steps. Would like runtime object keys to be more hardcoded, but for the moment this should suffice

Please provide a brief description of the changes made in this pull request.

Related Issue

If this pull request is related to any issue, please mention it here. Additionally, make sure that the issue is assigned to you before submitting this pull request.

Checklist

  • I have read the contributing documentation.
  • I signed and signed-off the commits (git commit -S -s ...). See this documentation on signing commits.
  • I have correctly attributed the author(s) of the code.
  • I have tested the changes locally.
  • I have followed the project's style guidelines.
  • I have updated the documentation, if necessary.
  • I have added tests, if applicable.

Screenshots (if applicable) or Testing Completed

Please add any relevant screenshots or GIFs to showcase the changes made.

Additional Notes

Add any additional notes or context about the pull request here.


Please refer to the CONTRIBUTING.md file for more information on how to contribute to this project.

@matmerr matmerr requested a review from a team as a code owner September 25, 2024 22:08
@matmerr matmerr changed the title test: add runtime objects per step test: add runtime objects per step in e2e Sep 25, 2024

var ErrEmptyRuntimeObject = errors.New("empty value for runtime object key")

type RuntimeObjects struct {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would it make more sense to use context.Context? context.WithValue is the traditional untyped bag of stuff to hand to functions.

Copy link
Member Author

@matmerr matmerr Oct 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

True, worth investigation and I'll switch this pr to draft. I'm not entirely sure how I feel yet about passing untyped structs, but I'm starting to think we do need a way of passing scenario scoped resources, and I've seen the usage be abused very quickly. Shelving this for a later time

@matmerr matmerr marked this pull request as draft October 1, 2024 20:25
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 1, 2024

This PR will be closed in 7 days due to inactivity.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the meta/waiting-for-author Blocked and waiting on the author label Nov 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
meta/waiting-for-author Blocked and waiting on the author
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants