Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 12, 2022. It is now read-only.

feat: Testing. More ways to verify table content. #221

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 19, 2022

Conversation

daniil-ushkov
Copy link
Contributor

Hi!
In yandex-cloud provider we want to verify more complex conditions than just non-empty columns. So I suggest to provide opportunity of writing custom verifiers for user.

@daniil-ushkov daniil-ushkov changed the title Testing: more ways to verify table content feat: more ways to verify table content Apr 14, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot added the feat label Apr 14, 2022
@daniil-ushkov daniil-ushkov changed the title feat: more ways to verify table content feat: Testing. More ways to verify table content. Apr 14, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot added feat and removed feat labels Apr 14, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@roneli roneli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like a great addition to SDK testing, had a few suggestions

provider/testing/verifiers.go Show resolved Hide resolved
provider/testing/resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
provider/testing/resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@roneli roneli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@yevgenypats
Copy link
Member

Hi @daniil-ushkov Looks great, thx! I'd love to run a few more potential improvement that we are thinking on the SDK side. Can you drop me a note on [email protected] (couldn't find your email easily :) )?

@yevgenypats yevgenypats merged commit f1efd02 into cloudquery:main Apr 19, 2022
@shimonp21
Copy link
Contributor

@daniil-ushkov Hi :) Updating that we released version v0.8.19 of the SDK.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants