846258 - [Cost Control] Unit tests for Usage (Cost Control) are needed

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Gaia::Cost Control, defect)

Description

[Salvador de la Puente González [:salva]]

Actually, Usage application has no unit test. An effort is required to provide test coverage.

Comment 1

[Lukas Blakk [:lsblakk] use ?needinfo]

We shouldn't need to track this in order to get tests, someone will need to coordinate with test automation team on this regardless of tracking status and develop a strategy for adding a new test suite.

Comment 2

[Salvador de la Puente González [:salva]]

In the following days I will upload several PR to cover Cost Control. Probably, these PR include code refactor as well to turn the Cost Control into a test-friendly application.

Comment 3

[Salvador de la Puente González [:salva]]

Attachment: Adding unit test infrastructure and tests for application startup cases

Comment 4

[Jose Manuel Cantera]

Comment on attachment 753202 [details]
Adding unit test infrastructure and tests for application startup cases

R+ with the latest nits addressed.

Good work Salva

Comment 5

[Salvador de la Puente González [:salva]]

master: 6a2e916b9f00d2984699c38592b27e23ad6be67d

Comment 6

[Salvador de la Puente González [:salva]]

Comment on attachment 753202 [details]
Adding unit test infrastructure and tests for application startup cases

It adds a new test suite and infrastructure to support the tests so it is a medium sized patch. Modifications on the application needed to get tests running are small but important and other v1-train bugs could be blocked by the lack of these changes. Please, grant me the approval.

Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): none
User impact if declined: low
Testing completed: yes
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): medium 
String or UUID changes made by this patch: none

Comment 7

[Alex Keybl [:akeybl]]

(In reply to Salvador de la Puente González [:salva] from comment #6)
> Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): medium 

Is the risk medium, or just the patch size? What's the worst user regresion that could happen by landing this code?

Comment 8

[Salvador de la Puente González [:salva]]

Only the patch size. Fortunately the changes are related to the application start-up but there is no worst regression as these tests warrant the start-up is correct precisely.

Comment 9

[John Ford [:jhford] CET/CEST Berlin Time]

I was not able to uplift this bug to v1-train.  If this bug has dependencies which are not marked in this bug, please comment on this bug.  If this bug depends on patches that aren't approved for v1-train, we need to re-evaluate the approval.  Otherwise, if this is just a merge conflict, you might be able to resolve it with:

  git checkout v1-train
  git cherry-pick -x -m1 6a2e916b9f00d2984699c38592b27e23ad6be67d
  <RESOLVE MERGE CONFLICTS>
  git commit

Comment 10

[Salvador de la Puente González [:salva]]

v1-train: 86f90fe70497a7bd04aa08c046587c8a1dd04aa9