FI-3010: Split out Subscription Rejection tests #7
Conversation
...ns_r5_backport_r4_server/subscription_rejection/reject_subscription_channel_endpoint_test.rb
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...riptions_test_kit/suites/subscriptions_r5_backport_r4_server/subscription_rejection_group.rb
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ns_r5_backport_r4_server/subscription_rejection/reject_subscription_channel_endpoint_test.rb
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ackport_r4_server/subscription_rejection/reject_subscription_cross_version_extension_test.rb
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
|
||
| subscription_field[field_name] = unsupported_info['field_value'] | ||
|
|
||
| send_unsupported_subscription(subscription, unsupported_info['unsupported_title'], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This logic does not appear to be doing the right thing. When I run it against the client tests, which echo the request back with a 201, it succeeds. Seems like that should be a failure because the cross version extension is still in the returned subscription and it succeeded.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Addressed in 06d86cb. Made changes to this test to actually just fail when receiving a 201 since I don't think it makes sense to alter the values based on the requirement description ("cross version extensions SHOULD NOT be used on R4 subscriptions to describe any elements") from HL7 guide. I can change this though to be closer to what it was before, or remove the test if we don't think it's as fleshed out as it doesn't have a requirement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure I agree with the changes. I think both approaches - allowing removal of the offending value are requiring rejection - are defensible. The IG also says that "servers MAY reject or coerce, according to their policies". Its in a different section, but it feels like it could easily apply here as well and that "coerce" could include removal of invalid extensions. If the verification code was working, I would prefer to leave it in rather than rip it out at this point. Interested to hear your reactions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nevermind - I guess the point was that this logic wasn't working, so I'm fine leaving it out!
...ubscriptions_r5_backport_r4_server/subscription_rejection/reject_subscription_filter_test.rb
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
to resolve the requirements-coverage CI failure, run the |
Summary
Testing Guidance