-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
Fb keycloak client improvement #9644
Merged
felixfontein
merged 7 commits into
ansible-collections:main
from
amPrimeSign:fb-keycloak-client-improvement
Feb 1, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
4f2076e
Fix for failed test
amPrimeSign 3a549c1
Improved test data to test more scenarios, e.g documentation uses Tru…
amPrimeSign 0a127c9
Normalize values in config
amPrimeSign 8495695
add changelog
amPrimeSign 81895f1
Apply suggestions from code review
amPrimeSign dd8316f
Update tests/integration/targets/keycloak_client/vars/main.yml
amPrimeSign c4873f5
Update changelogs/fragments/9644-kc_client-test-improvement-and-fix.yaml
amPrimeSign File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions
2
changelogs/fragments/9644-kc_client-test-improvement-and-fix.yaml
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | ||
bugfixes: | ||
- keycloak_client - fix and improve existing tests. The module showed a diff without actual changes, solved by improving the ``normalise_cr()`` function (https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.general/pull/9644). |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
I might be overthinking this, but you are modifying items of a dict that you are iterating over. I remember this causing problems in some versions of Python back in the day. But assuming that the tests cover this part of the code, it should be alright.
Also, an alternative way that would not incur in the non-existent problem 😆 (feel free to disregard) to implement this could be:
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.
I think editing an existing value should be ok, but I'm not a Python expert. For me, both options are fine, please pick your preferred one.
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.
Modifying dict values is fine, deleting or adding items would cause issues.
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 for chipping in @apollo13 !
@amPrimeSign so there you go, we're good the way it is now. :-)
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.
@russoz Thanks :)