Conversation
🦙 MegaLinter status: ✅ SUCCESS
See detailed report in MegaLinter reports MegaLinter is graciously provided by |
jlurien
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see these misalignments:
400 OUT_OF_RANGE -> defined but not tested. I don't think we need it looking into the request body schema
400 LOCATION_RETRIEVAL.MAXAGE_INVALID_ARGUMENT -> Description seems similar to 422 UNABLE_TO_FULFILL_MAX_AGE. is it needed? We should remove it or clarify when to use it instead of the other
422 LOCATION_RETRIEVAL.UNABLE_TO_FULFILL_MAX_SURFACE -> We may need a new scenario, something like
Scenario: Unable to provide device location with required maxSurface
Given the testing device, identified by the token or provided in the request, is located within a surface of certain area
And the request body property "$.maxSurface" is set to a value smaller than that area
When the HTTP "POST" request is sent
Then the response status code is 422
And the response header "Content-Type" is "application/json"
And the response header "x-correlator" has same value as the request header "x-correlator"
And the response property "$.status" is 422
And the response property "$.code" is "LOCATION_RETRIEVAL.UNABLE_TO_FULFILL_MAX_SURFACE"
And the response property "$.message" contains a user friendly text
|
Thanks @jlurien For the first 2 I need to update the yaml correct? Giving the purpose of the PR I propose to do this in another issue/PR - WDYT? |
What type of PR is this?
Add one of the following kinds:
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #307
Special notes for reviewers:
404 NOT_FOUND is exceptionally kept in the spec even if there is no test for it
Changelog input
Additional documentation
This section can be blank.