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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Improve Integration Tests for System Defined IdPs #21883

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 3, 2024
Merged

Improve Integration Tests for System Defined IdPs #21883

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 3, 2024
+152 −0

Conversation

Shenali-SJ
Copy link
Contributor

@Shenali-SJ Shenali-SJ commented Dec 2, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Proposed changes in this pull request

This PR adds API tests to validate the handling of duplicated scopes in standard-based OIDC IdPs and to validate the search functionality in IdPs.

Related Issue:

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

  • Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
  • Is the PR labeled correctly?

Functionality

  • Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
  • Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.

Code

  • Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
  • Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
  • Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.

Tests

  • Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
  • If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
  • If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?

Security

  • Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
  • Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
  • Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
  • Does all branching logic have a default case?
  • Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
  • Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?

Documentation

  • Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes should be documented.
  • Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented.
  • Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.

@Shenali-SJ Shenali-SJ force-pushed the custom-fed-mgt-integration-tests-system-defined branch from 80c7626 to e21d169 Compare December 3, 2024 10:30
@Shenali-SJ Shenali-SJ changed the title Validate handling of duplicated scopes in standard based OIDC IdPs Improve Integration Tests for System Defined IdPs. Dec 3, 2024
@Shenali-SJ Shenali-SJ changed the title Improve Integration Tests for System Defined IdPs. Improve Integration Tests for System Defined IdPs Dec 3, 2024
Thisara-Welmilla
Thisara-Welmilla reviewed Dec 3, 2024
View reviewed changes
.../src/test/java/org/wso2/identity/integration/test/rest/api/server/idp/v1/IdPSuccessTest.java
.body("identityProviders.find { it.id == '" + idPId + "' }.name", equalTo(IDP_NAME))
.body("identityProviders.find { it.id == '" + idPId + "' }.isEnabled", equalTo(true))
.body("identityProviders.find { it.id == '" + idPId + "' }.self", equalTo(getTenantedRelativePath(
"/api/server/v1/identity-providers/" + idPId,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Check whether there is constant for this "/api/server/v1/identity-providers/"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In the other similar instances also we have used the same way.

@jenkins-is-staging
Copy link
Contributor

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/12138645129

@jenkins-is-staging
Copy link
Contributor

PR builder completed
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/12138645129
Status: success

jenkins-is-staging
jenkins-is-staging approved these changes Dec 3, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@jenkins-is-staging jenkins-is-staging left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approving the pull request based on the successful pr build https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/12138645129

@Thisara-Welmilla Thisara-Welmilla merged commit 9d2d3b1 into wso2:master Dec 3, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Thisara-Welmilla Thisara-Welmilla Thisara-Welmilla approved these changes

@jenkins-is-staging jenkins-is-staging jenkins-is-staging approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@Shenali-SJ @jenkins-is-staging @Thisara-Welmilla