feat: [DHIS2-16372] Delete Relationships #3520
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@eirikhaugstulen, can you add a Cypress test for the delete relationship functionality? Thank you!
...s/WidgetsRelationship/common/RelationshipsWidget/DeleteRelationship/useDeleteRelationship.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ents/WidgetsRelationship/common/RelationshipsWidget/DeleteRelationship/DeleteRelationship.js
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Hey @simonadomnisoru! |
| cy.wait('@deleteRelationship') | ||
| .its('request.body') | ||
| .should('deep.equal', { | ||
| relationships: [{ relationship: 'mwswG3RMNuu' }], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reminder after the bug in the API is fixed: To keep DB consistency, the relationship that was deleted should be added back. Otherwise, the there is an existing relationship step will fail the next time the scenario is run.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This data is actually just mocked, so no need to add it again. We intercept the request for relationships in the before hook and then assert that we send the actual call to the api with the correct data! WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Testing against mocked data versus the API and DB has advantages and disadvantages 🤔 . By using mock data, we will no longer benefit from having the latest API changes available. We will need to ensure that the mocks are always up to date, otherwise, we may not detect when we introduce bugs.
Let's discuss it more in-depth in our next FE check-in meeting!
|
🚀 Deployed on https://deploy-preview-3520--dhis2-capture.netlify.app |
…_DeleteTEIRelationships
…_DeleteTEIRelationships # Conflicts: # i18n/en.pot
…_DeleteTEIRelationships # Conflicts: # i18n/en.pot
# [100.58.0](v100.57.6...v100.58.0) (2024-03-03) ### Features * [DHIS2-16372] Delete Relationships ([#3520](#3520)) ([9fed562](9fed562))
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 100.58.0 🎉 The release is available on:
Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Tech-summary:
Some caveats:
tracker-agile-team