Draft: Fix master missing commenters field specs
What does this MR do and why?
Describe in detail what your merge request does and why.
Local testing
master branch
Test environment set up in 218.724867 seconds
Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:69 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
F
Failures:
1) Types::VulnerabilityType is expected to have graphql fields :userPermissions, :id, :title, :description, :descriptionHtml, :message, :user_notes_count, :state, :severity, :report_type, :resolved_on_default_branch, :vulnerability_path, :web_url, :location, :scanner, :primary_identifier, :identifiers, :project, :issueLinks, :detected_at, :confirmed_at, :resolved_at, :dismissed_at, :notes, :external_issue_links, :links, :has_solutions, :false_positive, :merge_request, :discussions, :confirmed_by, :resolved_by, :dismissed_by, and :details
Failure/Error: it { expect(described_class).to have_graphql_fields(fields) }
contained unexpected fields: <["commenters"]>
# ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:69:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'
# ./spec/spec_helper.rb:415:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
# ./spec/support/sidekiq_middleware.rb:18:in `with_sidekiq_server_middleware'
# ./spec/spec_helper.rb:407:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'
# ./spec/spec_helper.rb:403:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
# ./lib/gitlab/application_context.rb:59:in `with_raw_context'
# ./spec/spec_helper.rb:403:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'
# ./spec/spec_helper.rb:239:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'
# ./spec/support/system_exit_detected.rb:7:in `block (2 levels) in <main>'
# ./spec/support/database/prevent_cross_joins.rb:106:in `block (3 levels) in <main>'
# ./spec/support/database/prevent_cross_joins.rb:60:in `with_cross_joins_prevented'
# ./spec/support/database/prevent_cross_joins.rb:106:in `block (2 levels) in <main>'
Finished in 3 minutes 41.9 seconds (files took 33.78 seconds to load)
1 example, 1 failure
Failed examples:
rspec ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:69 # Types::VulnerabilityType is expected to have graphql fields :userPermissions, :id, :title, :description, :descriptionHtml, :message, :user_notes_count, :state, :severity, :report_type, :resolved_on_default_branch, :vulnerability_path, :web_url, :location, :scanner, :primary_identifier, :identifiers, :project, :issueLinks, :detected_at, :confirmed_at, :resolved_at, :dismissed_at, :notes, :external_issue_links, :links, :has_solutions, :false_positive, :merge_request, :discussions, :confirmed_by, :resolved_by, :dismissed_by, and :details
This branch
$ be rspec ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb
Run options: include {:focus=>true}
All examples were filtered out; ignoring {:focus=>true}
Test environment set up in 5.328898 seconds
Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:70 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:71 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:155 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:166 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:76 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:84 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.*Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:138 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:144 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:177 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:188 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:95 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:206 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.Missing metadata feature_category: ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:220 See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/testing_guide/best_practices.html#feature-category-metadata
.
Pending: (Failures listed here are expected and do not affect your suite's status)
1) Types::VulnerabilityType false_positive when the vulnerability has a false-positive flag returns true for false positive field
# around hook at ./spec/spec_helper.rb:364 did not execute the example
# ./ee/spec/graphql/types/vulnerability_type_spec.rb:128
Finished in 14.38 seconds (files took 11.07 seconds to load)
14 examples, 0 failures, 1 pending
Randomized with seed 18171
[TEST PROF INFO] Time spent in factories: 00:05.640 (35.77% of total time)
Screenshots or screen recordings
Screenshots are required for UI changes, and strongly recommended for all other merge requests.
How to set up and validate locally
Numbered steps to set up and validate the change are strongly suggested.
MR acceptance checklist
This checklist encourages us to confirm any changes have been analyzed to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.
-
I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR.
Edited by David Dieulivol