[Backend]Test asset groups creation/update (#1494)

[johanah29]

#1494

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 36.07%. Comparing base (552196f) to head (41fd4c8).
Report is 3 commits behind head on release/1.11.0.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                  @@
##             release/1.11.0    #2150      +/-   ##
====================================================
+ Coverage             35.98%   36.07%   +0.08%     
- Complexity             1487     1491       +4     
====================================================
  Files                   546      546              
  Lines                 16626    16630       +4     
  Branches               1061     1061              
====================================================
+ Hits                   5983     5999      +16     
+ Misses                10340    10328      -12     
  Partials                303      303              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[antoinemzs]

Good start, thanks !

Apart from a few nitpicks, perhaps also consider adding more tests cases, e.g.:

• for when the asset group does not exist (for update)
• for other types of properties, eg description, tags, filter (create, update).

[RomuDeuxfois]

Good start, thanks !

Apart from a few nitpicks, perhaps also consider adding more tests cases, e.g.:

• for when the asset group does not exist (for update)
• for other types of properties, eg description, tags, filter (create, update).

Johanah being on leave, I take over on her PRs.

I took your comments into account and added the Transactional annotation.

I also took the opportunity to change the name of the methods to follow this pattern: given this should have that.
What do you think of this pattern?

[antoinemzs]

What do you think of this pattern?

Great pattern IMO for self explanatory test scopes. "Given this then that" or "when/with this it does that" are two widely used speech-like patterns that are also useful for the developer to limit the scope of their own tests.

[antoinemzs]

lgtm

[Dimfacion]

LGTM too :) Just a small nitpick but I think we should return a 404 if deleting a non existent element. It seems more logical to me as it can hide an issue in the frontend :
Imagine you have a bad code on your frontend or a client of the API, you have the id incorrectly set. You'll get back a 200 but the element won't be correctly deleted. Debugging this might prove annoying.