feat(auth_test.go): add interactive register spec #344
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
@mboersma, @Joshua-Anderson and @krancour are potential reviewers of this pull request based on my analysis of |
|
I worked with @vdice on this particular problem and can confirm it was hell to debug. This is a great compromise. LGTM |
|
Nice! Deis V1 used to use gexpect with the python CLI, but when porting over to golang I had similar problems and wasn't able to track them down. |
The mystery continues... 🔎 |
|
This is fine since it constitutes a test that would have caught the regression fixed by deis/workflow-cli#278. We can figure out the |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The caveat here is the semi-interactive compromise. I could not get interactive password entry (and re-entry for confirmation) to work -- the cli always claimed the passwords did not match. After an initial dive/experimentation into the
gexpectlibrary code we use here, I determined quite a bit of effort would be needed to shape up the code to begin to debug...Therefore, I believe our bases are still covered (in checking behavior after an interactive register -- albiet only with username and email here). I can file a follow-up issue to revisit the aforementioned conundrum, if that is deemed necessary.