Adds many more static workflow parser tests #30
Conversation
|
See #28 - the conditional operations will soon become less complicated. |
|
|
||
| describe('getNodeInfo', () => { | ||
| it('Returns nodeInfo containing only \'unknown\' nodeType if nodeId is undefined', () => { | ||
| const nodeInfo = getNodeInfo(newWorkflow(), undefined); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we distinguish between if a node was not found, or only its type wasn't? I can see if the returned value has an unknown node type, we log an error saying so, but perhaps this is misleading if the node doesn't exist, or the graph isn't defined.. etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. I switched it to returning unknown only when a matching nodeID is found, but the type isn't step or DAG. All of the other cases where the graph or nodeID are invalid return nulls
| expect(nodeInfo.containerInfo!.inputs).toEqual([['param1', ''], ['param2', '']]); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('Returns nodeInfo containing container outputs as list of name/value duples, pulling from valueFrom if necessary', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
whoops. I didn't realize that that was just a musical term
| ]); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('Returns empty strings for outputs with no specified value', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't this the same test on 422?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One is outputs, the other's inputs. The logic ends up being the same, but it's done by different lines of code.
| expect(nodeInfo.stepsInfo).toEqual({ conditional: '{{someVar}} == something', parameters: [[]]); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('Returns nodeInfo with step template\'s arguments when node template has \'when\' property', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"does not have 'when' property"
|
I think I also need to |
|
... hmmm and I guess |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: yebrahim The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| ]); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('Returns empty strings for outputs with no specified value', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One is outputs, the other's inputs. The logic ends up being the same, but it's done by different lines of code.
| expect(nodeInfo.containerInfo!.inputs).toEqual([['param1', ''], ['param2', '']]); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('Returns nodeInfo containing container outputs as list of name/value duples, pulling from valueFrom if necessary', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
whoops. I didn't realize that that was just a musical term
| expect(nodeInfo.stepsInfo).toEqual({ conditional: '{{someVar}} == something', parameters: [[]]); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('Returns nodeInfo with step template\'s arguments when node template has \'when\' property', () => { |
|
|
||
| describe('getNodeInfo', () => { | ||
| it('Returns nodeInfo containing only \'unknown\' nodeType if nodeId is undefined', () => { | ||
| const nodeInfo = getNodeInfo(newWorkflow(), undefined); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. I switched it to returning unknown only when a matching nodeID is found, but the type isn't step or DAG. All of the other cases where the graph or nodeID are invalid return nulls
…ing (kubeflow#31) * We were checking the wrong variable in the loop. * This was a typo introduced when we switched to supporting multiple workflows. * Fix kubeflow#30
run_e2e_workflow.py is exiting with an exception causing all prow jobs to be marked as a failure Add an E2E test to kubeflow/testing. This provides a way to test run_e2e_workflow.py as part of the presubmits. Fix kubeflow#30
Updating directory in Dockerfile
UPSTREAM:<carry>:fix:Endpoint fix for AWS S3 Bucket Session
This change is