Fix #494: Reject a promise on error condition #495
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #495 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.59% 84.59% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 48 48
Lines 3952 3954 +2
Branches 897 897
==========================================
+ Hits 3343 3345 +2
Misses 609 609
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
flovilmart
reviewed
Oct 23, 2017
src/ParseObject.js
Outdated
| @@ -1847,6 +1847,8 @@ var DefaultController = { | |||
| }, options); | |||
| }).then((response, status, xhr) => { | |||
| batchReturned.resolve(response, status); | |||
| }, (error) => { | |||
| batchReturned.reject(new _ParseError2.default(undefined, error.message)); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this seems wrong, should probably be new ParseError(error.message);
|
Thanks for pointing it out. Will correct and push shortly.
…On Oct 23, 2017 17:51, "Florent Vilmart" ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In src/ParseObject.js
<#495 (comment)>
:
> @@ -1847,6 +1847,8 @@ var DefaultController = {
}, options);
}).then((response, status, xhr) => {
batchReturned.resolve(response, status);
+ }, (error) => {
+ batchReturned.reject(new _ParseError2.default(undefined, error.message));
this seems wrong, should probably be new ParseError(error.message);
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#495 (review)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABYXzgPktVZjE9eOTIzTOvJHTaCKEYx8ks5svIS5gaJpZM4QCuR6>
.
|
|
Also consider adding tests as you are changing a public interface, and this may be unexpected for many users.
…On Oct 23, 2017, 08:29 -0400, Chandan Kumar ***@***.***>, wrote:
Thanks for pointing it out. Will correct and push shortly.
On Oct 23, 2017 17:51, "Florent Vilmart" ***@***.***> wrote:
> ***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
> ------------------------------
>
> In src/ParseObject.js
> <#495 (comment)>
> :
>
> > @@ -1847,6 +1847,8 @@ var DefaultController = {
> }, options);
> }).then((response, status, xhr) => {
> batchReturned.resolve(response, status);
> + }, (error) => {
> + batchReturned.reject(new _ParseError2.default(undefined, error.message));
>
> this seems wrong, should probably be new ParseError(error.message);
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#495 (review)>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABYXzgPktVZjE9eOTIzTOvJHTaCKEYx8ks5svIS5gaJpZM4QCuR6>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
Tried going through the tests in ParseObjectTest.js. Currently, there are no tests that cause failure of saveAll. I'm not sure how to make it fail. |
nrchandan
force-pushed
the
resolve-promise
branch
from
6b1deec to
3f385d4
Compare
|
I think I can make it fail. Let me give it a try.
…On Oct 23, 2017 18:03, "Florent Vilmart" ***@***.***> wrote:
Also consider adding tests as you are changing a public interface, and
this may be unexpected for many users.
On Oct 23, 2017, 08:29 -0400, Chandan Kumar ***@***.***>,
wrote:
> Thanks for pointing it out. Will correct and push shortly.
>
> On Oct 23, 2017 17:51, "Florent Vilmart" ***@***.***>
wrote:
>
> > ***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > In src/ParseObject.js
> > <https://github.com/parse-community/Parse-SDK-JS/pull/
495#discussion_r146246771>
> > :
> >
> > > @@ -1847,6 +1847,8 @@ var DefaultController = {
> > }, options);
> > }).then((response, status, xhr) => {
> > batchReturned.resolve(response, status);
> > + }, (error) => {
> > + batchReturned.reject(new _ParseError2.default(undefined,
error.message));
> >
> > this seems wrong, should probably be new ParseError(error.message);
> >
> > —
> > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <https://github.com/parse-community/Parse-SDK-JS/pull/
495#pullrequestreview-71159792>,
> > or mute the thread
> > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/
ABYXzgPktVZjE9eOTIzTOvJHTaCKEYx8ks5svIS5gaJpZM4QCuR6>
> > .
> >
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#495 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABYXzju05NnnBPnCVwiv5IHIjH4SZgkAks5svIeYgaJpZM4QCuR6>
.
|
nrchandan
force-pushed
the
resolve-promise
branch
from
3f385d4 to
d4c570c
Compare
flovilmart
suggested changes
Oct 24, 2017
integration/test/ParseObjectTest.js
Outdated
| it('cannot set an invalid date', (done) => { | ||
| let obj = new TestObject(); | ||
| obj.set('when', new Date(Date.parse(null))); | ||
| Parse.Object.saveAll([obj]).fail((e) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add .then(done.fail)
integration/test/ParseObjectTest.js
Outdated
| let obj = new TestObject(); | ||
| obj.set('when', new Date(Date.parse(null))); | ||
| Parse.Object.saveAll([obj]).fail((e) => { | ||
| done(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please test for the expected error message.
|
Also, the coverage is not improved as you’ve added an integration test and not a jest unit test. You may wanna consider doing that as there’s no way for now to ensure the code path is properly covered. |
|
That makes sense. Let me try adding a unit test.
…On Oct 24, 2017 6:40 AM, "Florent Vilmart" ***@***.***> wrote:
Also, the coverage is not improved as you’ve added an integration test and
not a jest unit test. You may wanna consider doing that as there’s no way
for now to ensure the code path is properly covered.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#495 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABYXzkQ7fDhrJg42-bUJe1GOMY3dPSxLks5svTj7gaJpZM4QCuR6>
.
|
|
Found two duplicate unit tests (both in the unit test file Should I remove these two in the same PR, or would you recommend creating a new PR for this? |
nrchandan
force-pushed
the
resolve-promise
branch
2 times, most recently
from
8a6d78d to
8f695f1
Compare
|
I prefer we don’t remove unit tests, PR’s should be as atomic as possible. |
|
Thanks Florent. Let me undo that and push again.
…On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Florent Vilmart ***@***.***> wrote:
I prefer we don’t remove unit tests, PR’s should be as atomic as possible.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#495 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABYXzlkmLxMjAPYIx06a6lbqqv9Sswb7ks5svcp6gaJpZM4QCuR6>
.
|
nrchandan
force-pushed
the
resolve-promise
branch
from
8f695f1 to
c07018c
Compare
|
Added a new error code: Also, updated the tests to check for both error message and this new error code. |
|
Unit test has passed, but integration failed. Both the tests are very similar. @flovilmart Could you help me fix it, or would it make sense to remove it instead? |
nrchandan
force-pushed
the
resolve-promise
branch
from
c07018c to
1bc7d26
Compare
|
Hi @flovilmart, I made a couple of changes. Could you take a look at this revised PR and let me know if this looks good for merging. |
|
This is looking good now! Let's go! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.