Skip to content
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

Expand testing to include sync and models #454

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dani-garcia
Copy link
Member

Type of change

- [ ] Bug fix
- [ ] New feature development
- [x] Tech debt (refactoring, code cleanup, dependency upgrades, etc)
- [ ] Build/deploy pipeline (DevOps)
- [ ] Other

Objective

Include some more complex tests of client login/sync/encrypt/decrypt

Some model fields were previously private, so I've had to change them to pub, for now it's not a problem as no one is using the rust models directly.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 20, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (0360a9a) 45.21% compared to head (8eb96a3) 52.41%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #454      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   45.21%   52.41%   +7.19%     
==========================================
  Files         153      153              
  Lines        6918     6918              
==========================================
+ Hits         3128     3626     +498     
+ Misses       3790     3292     -498     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Comment on lines +16 to +23
pub id: Option<Uuid>,
pub organization_id: Uuid,

name: EncString,
pub name: EncString,

external_id: Option<String>,
hide_passwords: bool,
read_only: bool,
pub external_id: Option<String>,
pub hide_passwords: bool,
pub read_only: bool,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The long term aspiration is to not expose this model externally. So I'm a bit hesitant to just make all of these public with that knowledge.

Would it not be sufficient if we verify that the decrypted view matches our expectation?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants