Making some brittle tests related to log assertion more robust #53743
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
amoghrajesh
requested review from
hussein-awala and
jedcunningham
as code owners
boring-cyborg
bot
added
area:providers
provider:cncf-kubernetes
gopidesupavan
approved these changes
Jul 25, 2025
hussein-awala
approved these changes
Jul 25, 2025
ferruzzi
pushed a commit
to aws-mwaa/upstream-to-airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2025
fweilun
pushed a commit
to fweilun/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While working on #53704, I realised that some tests were relying on index order to assert whether a certain log is present or not.
This is super brittle and #53704 is a classic example. I changed the log order from info => debug and the order of assertion in these tests broke down. That shouldn't be the case, an update in a base layer shouldn't affect provider tests that badly.
Making the tests more robust by asserting presence vs absence.
^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rstor{issue_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments.