Conversation
|
Hi @trehman-gsma! I wasn't sure how to include our proposal so I created a different PR #70 Any feedback is welcome 😄 |
|
Hello @trehman-gsma |
|
Hi @fernandopradocabrillo @bigludo7, Sorry I didn't see this earlier (notifications landed in an unmonitored email folder - my bad). I'm happy to adopt PR #70 instead of this PR. It covers most of the same test cases - the language differs but that's a syntactic matter to be agreed - and I can see there has been more detailed discussion within #70. Will provide feedback in PR #70. Shall I close this PR or wait for camaraproject/Commonalities#94 to close? |
|
@trehman-gsma You should keep it open and waiting for camaraproject/Commonalities#94 outcome. Both your and @fernandopradocabrillo contributions are valuable. We need to agreed on a common pattern and once done we will work from the closest one. |
|
Hi @trehman-gsma We can probably close this PR and work only on the PR70 - what do you think? |
|
Closing this PR in favour of #70 (aligned with CAMARA test definition guidelines) |
What type of PR is this?
Tests
What this PR does / why we need it:
Initial test case proposal. The API readiness checklist states that API test cases should be created.
Created two
.featurefiles that contain Gherkin test cases. One file containing test cases forPOST /retrieve-dateand the second file containing test cases forPOST /check.The files were created under the
/code/Test_definitionsas per guidance in camaraproject/Template_API_Repository#1Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #63
Special notes for reviewers:
Initial test case proposal. Will amend as per feedback.
Changelog input