e2e tests #41
e2e tests #41
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #41 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.38% 88.57% +0.18%
==========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 1068 1068
==========================================
+ Hits 944 946 +2
+ Misses 88 87 -1
+ Partials 36 35 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
test/e2e/run-test
Outdated
| AEIS="${BUILD_DIR}/ec2-instance-selector" | ||
|
|
||
| ## Build binary for tests to run | ||
| make -f $MAKEFILE build |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why build here instead of having build be part of the make e2e-test target?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that's a good point. I wanted it to be standalone executable, but I suppose if the binary doesn't exist, it would just error. If it was out-of-date though, could get bad results.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
any particular reason why you want it to be standalone executable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the only reason would be if they grow and we'd need to add some CLI options to fail fast or do some other optimization when running them. Was interested in using local-stack (they don't currently support DescribeInstanceTypes or DescribeInstanceTypeOfferings, but maybe in the future) so that they could be run without credentials, which could be a CLI option. Make doesn't make it easy to pass options like that. But I think simplifying it now to only be run through make is fine. If we end up adding stuff later, we can reevaluate, or do a more clever check on the binary to make sure the latest version is being executed.
3 participants
Issue #, if available:
N/A
Description of changes:
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.