-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[uss_qualifier/utm] Add make_report test step fragment #552
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
10 changes: 10 additions & 0 deletions
10
monitoring/uss_qualifier/scenarios/astm/utm/make_dss_report.md
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ | ||
# Make report to DSS test step fragment | ||
This step makes a report to the DSS. | ||
|
||
See `make_dss_report` in [test_steps.py](test_steps.py). | ||
|
||
## 🛑 DSS report successfully submitted check | ||
If the submission of the report to the DSS does not succeed, this check will fail per **[astm.f3548.v21.DSS0100,2](../../../requirements/astm/f3548/v21.md)**. | ||
|
||
## ⚠️ DSS returned a valid report ID check | ||
If the ID returned by the DSS is not present or is empty, this check will fail per **[astm.f3548.v21.DSS0100,2](../../../requirements/astm/f3548/v21.md)**. |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that we could add an extra check that verifies that the returned report is in all points equal to what was submitted (except for the ID). That is no an explicit requirement, but the OpenAPI file specifies that the return value is an
ErrorReport
, and it would not make much sense if the returned report was not the submitted one.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good question, but I'm unclear on whether that should actually fail a requirement. I will go ahead and merge the PR as is (because it was approved) and turn to @BenjaminPelletier : should we add this check (in a separate PR)?