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

fix missing subscription policy parameter returning issue #4581

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 25, 2017

Conversation

chamilaadhi
Copy link
Contributor

@chamilaadhi chamilaadhi commented Sep 22, 2017

Proposed changes in this pull request

[List all changes you want to add here. If you fixed an issue, please
add a reference to that issue as well.]

When should this PR be merged

[Please describe any preconditions that need to be addressed before we
can merge this pull request.]

Follow up actions

[List any possible follow-up actions here; for instance, testing data
migrations, software that we need to install on staging and production
environments.]

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

  • Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
  • Is the PR labeled correctly?

Functionality

  • Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
  • Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.

Code

  • Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
  • Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
  • Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.

Tests

  • Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
  • If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
  • If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?

Security

  • Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
  • Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
  • Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
  • Does all branching logic have a default case?
  • Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
  • Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?

Documentation

  • Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes should be documented.
  • Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented.
  • Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.

Assert.assertNotNull(retrievedPolicy, "Policy " + policy.getPolicyName() + " not in DB");
Assert.assertNotNull(retrievedPolicy2, "Policy " + policy2.getPolicyName() + " not in DB");

Assert.assertEquals(retrievedPolicy.getPolicyName(), policy.getPolicyName(),

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shall we put the repeated assertion strings into a constant without duplicating in all these test cases? Might be useful if we are to change the message in future.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok looks like the message differs for each. Hence ignore this

@chamilaadhi chamilaadhi merged commit 797e9ae into wso2:master Sep 25, 2017
wso2-jenkins-bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 14, 2020
AnuGayan pushed a commit to AnuGayan/carbon-apimgt that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2022
* Handle special chars in consumerKey
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.

2 participants