Closed UncleGedd closed 1 week ago
I like runCmd
because you can very clearly see the details of the cli command that will execute, but after converting a few tests i'm wondering if that quick transparency is worth the redundant code and clutter that i think it brings.
Maybe it's better for those one off cases that the generic commands don't allow for?
My 2 cents:
runCmd
saves me from having to click into those dedicated testing functionsrunCmd
is sort of redundant, but so is creating the same create
command with multiple flagsThoughts @decleaver ?
Describe what should be investigated or refactored
Today in our e2e tests we are using dedicated functions that wrap UDS commands (ie.
deploy()
,devDeploy()
,devDeployPackages()
, etc).In a separate PR the
runCmd
function was introduced which is a generic way to pass in UDS Commands. Discuss refactoring our test suite to remove the individual functions in favor ofrunCmd