-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 389
test: [DPS-34824] - Add cypress tests for logs destinations #12936
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: [DPS-34824] - Add cypress tests for logs destinations #12936
Conversation
|
The API for this test is on devCloud so far. I see that the e2e here in PR are launched with Prod API, so the tests will not pass. How can we handle that? Or do we need to wait until API endpoints are released to Prod to merge these tests? |
7d9e3ab to
1f5f999
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.
Please try to make small contributions in the future. This PR is too large and should be broken down to allow for easier reviews.
Additionally, one of the test you added is failing in the CI
|
Hello @abailly-akamai
11/21 files are just There are really only 4 cypress tests and 5 files with some supporting methods/mock data added as actual changes.
Please check out the comment above (#12936 (comment)), as I explain why the test fails and ask for help with handling that issue. |
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.
Thanks @kagora-akamai, this is a nice start and it's cool being able to see this feature in action!
The API for this test is on devCloud so far. I see that the e2e here in PR are launched with Prod API, so the tests will not pass. How can we handle that? Or do we need to wait until API endpoints are released to Prod to merge these tests?
Generally we mock API responses for endpoints that aren't available in Prod. I don't think it'd be too challenging to use mocks for create-destination.spec.ts and edit-destinaton.spec.ts to get them passing in CI if that's compatible with your requirements: it looks like you've already laid a lot of the groundwork by adding the necessary utils, etc.
Alternatively we can always set up a tag for tests like this so they get skipped when running against Prod but not DevCloud, but that'd require a (quick and easy) change to our CI pipeline first. I think it'd be worthwhile to have anyway so I'll get to work on that.
Let me know if you have any questions or if I can lend a hand!
packages/manager/cypress/e2e/core/delivery/destinations-non-empty-landing-page.spec.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/manager/cypress/e2e/core/delivery/destinations-non-empty-landing-page.spec.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/manager/cypress/e2e/core/delivery/destinations-non-empty-landing-page.spec.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
waiting for changes from task [DPS-35019] - Region field will be removed |
logs destinations
e97fdbd to
1640efd
Compare
…irmation modal added
1640efd to
d37d1ee
Compare
Cloud Manager UI test results🔺 3 failing tests on test run #7 ↗︎
Details
TroubleshootingUse this command to re-run the failing tests: pnpm cy:run -s "cypress/e2e/core/objectStorage/object-storage.e2e.spec.ts,cypress/e2e/core/objectStorageMulticluster/object-storage-objects-multicluster.spec.ts,cypress/e2e/core/objectStorage/access-key.e2e.spec.ts" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
Thanks @kagora-akamai, this looks great and the tests pass reliably 👍
Description 📝
Cypress e2e test for logs destinations
Changes 🔄
Scope 🚢
Target release date 🗓️
October 2025
How to test 🧪
Prerequisites
Set up manager with devCloud credentials and add to
manager/.env:Verification steps
pnpm cy:debugdeliverysection with tests and proceed with lounching each of themAuthor Checklists
As an Author, to speed up the review process, I considered 🤔
👀 Doing a self review
❔ Our contribution guidelines
🤏 Splitting feature into small PRs
➕ Adding a changeset
🧪 Providing/improving test coverage
As an Author, before moving this PR from Draft to Open, I confirmed ✅