Closed rgayon closed 3 years ago
Merging #266 into master will increase coverage by
2.53%
. The diff coverage is70.54%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #266 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 65.39% 67.93% +2.53%
==========================================
Files 14 29 +15
Lines 968 2030 +1062
==========================================
+ Hits 633 1379 +746
- Misses 335 651 +316
Flag | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
#nosetests | 67.93% <70.54%> (+2.53%) |
:arrow_up: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
...cloudforensics/providers/azure/internal/network.py | 24.52% <24.52%> (ø) |
|
libcloudforensics/providers/aws/internal/kms.py | 40.00% <40.00%> (ø) |
|
libcloudforensics/providers/gcp/forensics.py | 54.54% <48.00%> (-10.46%) |
:arrow_down: |
libcloudforensics/providers/aws/forensics.py | 56.16% <53.06%> (-13.61%) |
:arrow_down: |
...cs/providers/gcp/internal/compute_base_resource.py | 37.33% <54.28%> (+0.82%) |
:arrow_up: |
libcloudforensics/providers/aws/internal/log.py | 73.07% <55.55%> (-4.20%) |
:arrow_down: |
...ibcloudforensics/providers/gcp/internal/compute.py | 56.68% <55.81%> (-5.67%) |
:arrow_down: |
...bcloudforensics/providers/gcp/internal/function.py | 40.54% <62.50%> (+8.28%) |
:arrow_up: |
...loudforensics/providers/azure/internal/resource.py | 65.38% <65.38%> (ø) |
|
...ibcloudforensics/providers/gcp/internal/project.py | 61.90% <66.66%> (-3.81%) |
:arrow_down: |
... and 35 more |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 375fb7c...f79662c. Read the comment docs.
@rgayon can you please add unit-tests or open a new issue and add them in a subsequent PR?
@rgayon can you please add unit-tests or open a new issue and add them in a subsequent PR?
So I actually wonder what I should be testing for, if I'm mock'ing gce_image_client.delete() & gce_disk_client.delete() as I'm not using their result whatsoever. This is similar to how gce_image_client.delete() & gce_snapshot_client.delete() don't have unit tests either
@rgayon can you please add unit-tests or open a new issue and add them in a subsequent PR?
So I actually wonder what I should be testing for, if I'm mock'ing gce_image_client.delete() & gce_disk_client.delete() as I'm not using their result whatsoever. This is similar to how gce_image_client.delete() & gce_snapshot_client.delete() don't have unit tests either
yes thats true, I think what can be tested here is the delete_disks flag to make sure that disks_to_delete is what is expected to get (from the mock with disks.source fields ).
@rgayon can you please add unit-tests or open a new issue and add them in a subsequent PR?
So I actually wonder what I should be testing for, if I'm mock'ing gce_image_client.delete() & gce_disk_client.delete() as I'm not using their result whatsoever. This is similar to how gce_image_client.delete() & gce_snapshot_client.delete() don't have unit tests either
yes thats true, I think what can be tested here is the delete_disks flag to make sure that disks_to_delete is what is expected to get (from the mock with disks.source fields ).
Added a test to check that the disks().delete() method is called
little things
ack
sa3eed3ed did a solid review, lgtm from me.
Fixes #265 by adding a Delete() method to the gce Disk & Instance objects.