FI-3813: migrate to core Must Support assertion#39
Merged
Conversation
Shaumik-Ashraf
approved these changes
Mar 19, 2025
Contributor
Shaumik-Ashraf
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Confirmed this branch and production behave the same
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
This PR migrates the MustSupportTest and MustSupportMetadataExtractor to leverage versions that are now included in core. This is not a "complete" migration, but aims for "minimal but clean".
MustSupportMetadataExtractor: This class now extends the version from inferno_core. Ripped out most of the innards of this class except forhandle_special_casesandmust_supportswhich callssuperthenhandle_special_casesMustSupportTest: Ripped out most of the innards of this class except forhandle_special_caseswhich calls the core assertionassert_must_support_elements_presentTesting Guidance
Running all MS tests (really all tests in general) should produce identical results to what's currently on prod. It's possible there could be some slight variations in how missing field names are reported but I didn't see instances of that in my testing. Unless something is clearly different and wrong, I think we should consider it ok for the field names to be reported slightly differently going forward.