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.

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

mbeliaev/loose matcher #498

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Feb 22, 2022

Conversation

beliaev-maksim
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes #496

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 9, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #498 (a2be685) into master (4c4b46b) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master      #498   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            6         6           
  Lines         2162      2184   +22     
=========================================
+ Hits          2162      2184   +22     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
responses/matchers.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
responses/test_matchers.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4c4b46b...a2be685. Read the comment docs.

@beliaev-maksim
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tests fail, #495 should fix it


if not valid:
reason = "Parameters do not match. {} doesn't match {}".format(
_create_key_val_str(request_params_dict),
_create_key_val_str(params_dict),
)
if not strict_match:
reason += "\nNote that you use not strict parameters check."
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
reason += "\nNote that you use not strict parameters check."
reason += "\nYou can use `strict_match=False` to use enable matches."

What do you think of this? It makes the error more instructive on what a next step could be.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

agree with the idea, but I think the message should be "You can use 'strict_match=True' to do a strict parameters check."
since now this reason is triggered when strict_match=False

@markstory markstory merged commit 6530139 into getsentry:master Feb 22, 2022
@beliaev-maksim beliaev-maksim deleted the mbeliaev/loose_matcher branch February 22, 2022 15:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Partial query_param_matcher
2 participants