-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.4k
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
fix(database): make to display validation error msg when all cases #20095
Merged
rusackas
merged 13 commits into
apache:master
from
prosdev0107:fix/47160-database-validation
Aug 24, 2022
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
42bcc0a
fix(database): make to display validation error msg when all cases
prosdev0107 5c6bd51
fix(db): make to update the alert error condition
prosdev0107 5644890
fix(db): make to add error detail display
prosdev0107 39f3243
fix(db): make to update error alert display by superset error style g…
prosdev0107 9dbedc6
fix(db): make to rebase master
prosdev0107 19e8868
fix(db): make to style modal header title with h4
prosdev0107 da05138
fix(db): make to merge master
prosdev0107 4527683
fix(db): make to place see more on bottom instead of top
prosdev0107 0da5e33
fix(db): make to fix shortly
prosdev0107 289ef3e
fix(db): make to fix lint issue
prosdev0107 36cc44e
fix(db): make to merge master
prosdev0107 fcf40eb
Merge branch 'master' into fix/47160-database-validation
rusackas d7428c6
Merge branch 'master' into fix/47160-database-validation
rusackas 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
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
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.
Previously, this was
if (isEmpty(dbErrors) === false)
This new line of
if (!isEmpty(dbErrors))
is logically the same, which is great...However, now I'm a little worried. Our QA round didn't catch anything wrong when this logic was indeed wrong. So... what does this exactly DO, and how do we test it to make sure it's working as expected?
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.
Unit tests to cover this area of code and prove it works would be ideal. Spinning up an ephemeral for manual testing now that CI has passed. Please let us know what manual testing steps would help here.
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.
@rusackas
I tried to add the unit test for this case but couldn't do it because of that getValidation function is a call in a hooks and so it is invalid hook call in jest file. And so I add manual testing steps into the Test instructions