Closed RaynaldM closed 1 month ago
Ray, thank you for your feedback in the related discussion! For future reference, could you please create a feature branch in your personal folder on the origin? Use this format: RaynaldM/2083
.
Additionally, while having two unit tests is great, we also require at least one acceptance test that verifies the user scenario and the hotfix. Your contribution of an acceptance test would be greatly appreciated.
Ray, thank you for your feedback in the related discussion! For future reference, could you please create a feature branch in your personal folder on the origin? Use this format:
RaynaldM/2083
.Additionally, while having two unit tests is great, we also require at least one acceptance test that verifies the user scenario and the hotfix. Your contribution of an acceptance test would be greatly appreciated.
Sorry for branch issue, I did it quickly... I'm not the more qualified for UT, I will work on it later
Let me check what acceptance tests do we have now...
I have no good clarity on this
https://github.com/ThreeMammals/Ocelot/blob/a034e8c1e3fc23a086ad10000c85615b9696a43e/src/Ocelot.Provider.Polly/PollyQoSResiliencePipelineProvider.cs#L36
What does the condition options.TimeoutValue is int.MaxValue
check actually? Why max value?
Based on other line 52
https://github.com/ThreeMammals/Ocelot/blob/a034e8c1e3fc23a086ad10000c85615b9696a43e/src/Ocelot.Provider.Polly/PollyQoSResiliencePipelineProvider.cs#L52
I expect that line 36 should check existence of the option, right? So, I expect this check 👉
// this means the option does NOT exist
options.TimeoutValue == int.MaxValue || options.TimeoutValue == 0
Am I right, @RaynaldM ?
Our official acceptance testing for Polly provider: https://github.com/ThreeMammals/Ocelot/blob/a034e8c1e3fc23a086ad10000c85615b9696a43e/test/Ocelot.AcceptanceTests/PollyQoSTests.cs#L9 Reviewing...
Fixes #2085
2085
Discussion
2083
Proposed Changes