🐛 Add url validation to rules step

[ibolton336]

Resolves https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MTA-985

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 66.66% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (e138388) 44.09% compared to head (6a7b399) 44.10%.

❗ Current head 6a7b399 differs from pull request most recent head 98ec036. Consider uploading reports for the commit 98ec036 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1180   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   44.09%   44.10%           
=======================================
  Files         177      177           
  Lines        4499     4501    +2     
  Branches     1007     1007           
=======================================
+ Hits         1984     1985    +1     
- Misses       2504     2505    +1     
  Partials       11       11           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unitests	44.10% <66.66%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...c/app/pages/applications/analysis-wizard/schema.ts	90.24% <50.00%> (-2.07%)	⬇️
client/src/app/utils/utils.ts	72.54% <100.00%> (ø)

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[sjd78]

I suggest adding a few more strings to the tests, and have an it() section for gitUrlRegex and standardURLRegex.

A few url string suggestions:

• ""
• " http://www.foo.bar"
• " http://www.foo.bar "
• "www.foo.bar"
• "foo.bar"
• "www.foo.b"
• "foo.ba"

Having a separate it() just for a double test would be good as well:

it("URL should match the same multiple times in a row", () => {
  const url = "https://github.com/ibolton336/tackle-testapp.git";

  expect(standardURLRegex.test(url).toBe(true);
  expect(standardURLRegex.test(url).toBe(true);
  expect(standardURLRegex.test(url).toBe(true);
  expect(standardURLRegex.test(url).toBe(true);
  expect(standardURLRegex.test(url).toBe(true);
});

And that test should fail if you put the /g back on the pattern...

[mturley]

jeez, I would not have expected a regex test to have state like that

[sjd78]

LGTM!

The tests look good so they capture all of the troubles that have been dealt with. 👍