No-op change. The ImageType object contained a couple of hardcoded values for "Photograph" etc. - wrongly implying that these are the only valid values! Instead, remove this type and pass the used values directly.
While here, I noticed that a few of the tests were actually not running their assertions; the be function, with its argument on the trailing line was in a position that meant it was being referenced rather than invoked. That revealed a couple of failing tests, that needed to be updated to match the current version of the code.
How should a reviewer test this change?
Code review should be sufficient.
How can success be measured?
Who should look at this?
Tested? Documented?
[ ] locally by committer
[ ] locally by Guardian reviewer
[ ] on the Guardian's TEST environment
[ ] relevant documentation added or amended (if needed)
All deployment options
- [Deploy build 12834 to TEST](https://riffraff.gutools.co.uk/deployment/deployAgain?project=media-service%3A%3Agrid%3A%3Aall&build=12834&stage=TEST&updateStrategy=MostlyHarmless&action=deploy)
- [Deploy parts of build 12834 to TEST by previewing it first](https://riffraff.gutools.co.uk/preview/yaml?project=media-service%3A%3Agrid%3A%3Aall&build=12834&stage=TEST&updateStrategy=MostlyHarmless)
github-actions[bot]
commented
1 month ago
What does this change?
No-op change. The
ImageTypeobject contained a couple of hardcoded values for "Photograph" etc. - wrongly implying that these are the only valid values! Instead, remove this type and pass the used values directly.While here, I noticed that a few of the tests were actually not running their assertions; the
befunction, with its argument on the trailing line was in a position that meant it was being referenced rather than invoked. That revealed a couple of failing tests, that needed to be updated to match the current version of the code.How should a reviewer test this change?
Code review should be sufficient.
How can success be measured?
Who should look at this?
Tested? Documented?