[WIP]Elasticache Teardown #1
Conversation
hubeadmin
changed the title
hubeadmin
force-pushed
the
INTLY-5006-aws-teardown
branch
from
6231afd to
0032c46
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Few small comments.
We should also remove ./a.out, looks like it was added by accident. A git status and git add'ing files or directories to the staging area/index in git individually may have helped avoid this. See [1] for more details.
Let's also ensure we have tests for the elasticache#DeleteResourcesForCluster function before merging. [2] can be used as a template here.
[1] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Basics-Recording-Changes-to-the-Repository
[2] https://github.com/integr8ly/cluster-service/blob/95cd3421a83db0e95dfdfd00db9afe5c2d42fbb3/pkg/aws/rds_test.go
hubeadmin
changed the title
| }, | ||
| taggingClient: func() *resourcetaggingClientMock { | ||
| fakeTaggingClient, err := fakeResourcetaggingClient(func(c *resourcetaggingClientMock) error { | ||
| c.GetResourcesFunc = func(in1 *resourcegroupstaggingapi.GetResourcesInput) (output *resourcegroupstaggingapi.GetResourcesOutput, err error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are we returning an error when mocking this function if we're expecting the entire function run to pass?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My Approach to this was that we want to block the input for the delete function by returning a nil as an output of getResources so that it doesn't have anything to delete, and then since it doesn't delete anything it won't return the reportItem, then just checking that the report item isn't in fact created when no resources are deleted
refactor snapshot deletion to not require replicationgroup
Adding new classes to the AWS teardown CLI for elasticache and postgres