feat(STONEINTG-901): added debugging page for integration tests #93
Conversation
chipspeak
commented
Jul 22, 2024
chipspeak
commented
- Added a new page for debugging integration tests via console
- Added supporting screenshots
- Updated nav accordingly
- Tested via local build
|
🚀 Preview is available at https://pr-93--konflux-docs.netlify.app |
dirgim
requested review from
arewm,
ralphbean,
14rcole,
Josh-Everett,
dirgim,
hongweiliu17,
kasemAlem,
dheerajodha,
jsztuka,
jencull,
Chr1st1anSears and
gtrivedi88
docs/modules/ROOT/pages/how-tos/testing/integration/debugging.adoc
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| . Identify the IntegrationTestScenario that has failed. This can be found in the console by navigating to | ||
| Applications/your_application_name/activity and select "Pipeline Runs" under "Activity By". Your view should be similar to the below image. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to separate these steps out similar to how the verification steps have been listed for other integration test pages?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure thing! Just to make sure I have it right, more like a single sentence per step?
| + | ||
| image::testfailed.png[role="border" alt="Test Failed"] | ||
|
|
||
| . In the above example the output suggests that the pipelineRun is missing an expected parameter, "username". To edit the integration test, scroll down to the "Integration Test" field and click on the listed test. This should take you to a view similar to the one seen below. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are there different types of failure mechanisms? Are you only trying to show users how to debug and resolve missing parameter issues?
I feel like this needs to be more generic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The intention was to provide a step-by-step resolution of an example issue but is it the case where broader is better here? I could instead point to the editing page for clarity or else make clearer that this is just one example of an issue and how to resolve it?
| . Click on the "Actions" button seen above and select "Edit". This should take you to the below view. | ||
|
|
||
| + | ||
| image::edittest.png[role="border" alt="Edit Test"] | ||
|
|
||
| . In this example we will need to click on the "Parameters" dropdown and add the parameter expected by the pipeline run. | ||
| In this case it's "username" and we will set the value to "testuser". Once you've completed your edits, click "Save Changes" at the bottom of the screen to update the integration test. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is at least partially invalidated by the recent PR #92. Can we instead integrate that in here and/or add additional information to that page related to these changes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah it feels like the logical thing to do would be to point to link to the editing for the relevant steps and elaborate as needed if that makes sense?
| . In this example we will need to click on the "Parameters" dropdown and add the parameter expected by the pipeline run. | ||
| In this case it's "username" and we will set the value to "testuser". Once you've completed your edits, click "Save Changes" at the bottom of the screen to update the integration test. | ||
|
|
||
| . Return to the activity view mentioned in step 1 and click on the 3 verticle dots on the right side of the pipeline run. Within this expanded menu, click "rerun". This will rerun the integration test with our updated parameter. This should result in a success as seen in the below image. For a more comprehensive, CLI-focused explanation of rerunning tests, click xref:/how-tos/testing/integration/rerunning.adoc[here]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we instead add information on how to rerun from the UI to https://konflux-ci.dev/docs/how-tos/testing/integration/rerunning/? Then we can just simply link users there to rerun the test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah that makes total sense. I can add the supporting text to those steps as an alternate approach to CLI. I was wondering though, is there an argument in situations like this for a separate subpage for CLI and UI respectively? To me that would provide a bit more clarity for a user.
docs/modules/ROOT/pages/how-tos/testing/integration/debugging.adoc
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
@dirgim I added a fellow writer, Oss (@missmesss) as a reviewer. She'll provide a docs team review 👍 |
|
@Chr1st1anSears @gtrivedi88 I'll review this one, no worries. @dirgim Oftentimes writers' reviews come last, after the tech reviews. I see Andrew suggests some changes to the procedures, so I'll keep an eye on this PR and review the changes when they're closer to being finalized, if you don't mind. |
docs/modules/ROOT/pages/how-tos/testing/integration/debugging.adoc
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
🚀 Preview is available at https://pr-93--konflux-docs.netlify.app |
|
🚀 Preview is available at https://pr-93--konflux-docs.netlify.app |
|
🚀 Preview is available at https://pr-93--konflux-docs.netlify.app |
docs/modules/ROOT/pages/how-tos/testing/integration/debugging.adoc
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Pat O'Connor <[email protected]>
|
🚀 Preview is available at https://pr-93--konflux-docs.netlify.app |
