-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 124
ci: add integration and state transition tests for the secrets API #2078
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
136817b
to
c7e97c3
Compare
c7e97c3
to
3f918cb
Compare
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.
Here I make the test charm a package, so that the charm class can be imported into Scenario tests without hacks.
It feels a bit ugly, but that's the best way I could come up with.
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.
Per voice discussion (and comments below), let's aim for a much simpler approach with static tests in their regular place. If in future we end up having a lot of duplication, we can figure out the best way to share the common code.
- 3.3/stable | ||
- 3.4/stable | ||
- 3.5/stable | ||
- 3.6/stable |
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.
Do you think we need to run the tests on all of these tracks?
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.
Today, I'm aware of three version ranges that we must test:
- pre-3.5 (possibly any between 3.1 and 3.4)
- 3.5.5+
- 3.6.0+
I'm thinking to test on a wider variety of Jujus until we've got good secrets API coverage.
At the point, individual tests and their caveats (e.g. juju_version > 3.3.7: assert foo
) would allows us to select a more precise set of Juju versions.
WDYT?
Alternative PR: dimaqq#74 |
High level idea
Run the same series of Ops API calls in unit and integration tests.
This PR