DNSPodDNSTests.test_create_record_success() returns an unexpected value

[macfreek]

DNSPodDNSTests.test_create_record_success() returns an unexpected value

Consider the following code (in test_dnspod.py):

def test_create_record_success(self):
    DNSPodMockHttp.type = 'CREATE_RECORD_SUCCESS'
    record = self.driver.create_record(name='@', zone=self.test_zone,
                                       type='A', data='96.126.115.73',
                                       extra={'ttl': 13,
                                              'record_line': 'default'})

Expected result

I would expect record.extra['ttl'] to be an int 13

Actual result

The actual result, when running this unit test is:

record.extra['ttl'] is the string '600'. record.ttl is None.

Note that '600' (yes, a string) is the default TTL of the self.test_zone. See the explicit check in line 61.

Detailed Information

At first, I expected an error in DNSPodDNSDriver.create_record(). Perhaps it ignored the extra parameter.

However, the extra dict is merged in the data dict, which is send to the DNSPod API, so that seems correct (although I don't know the intrinsics of the DNSPod API can am not sure).

Diving deeper in the test code, the perhaps likely explanation is that the API simulator (DNSPodMockHttp) returns the incorrect results. DNSPodMockHttp._Record_Create_CREATE_RECORD_SUCCESS() is called, which returns the contents of get_record.json. That file indeed contains "ttl": "600",. So I suspect that the unit test is flawed, not the actual code or DNSPod API (although I can't verify without access to this API).

Suggested Fix

Without a contributor who has access to this API, my suggested solution is to disable this particular assertion in DNSPodDNSTests.test_create_record_success().

This fix is included in #1537

[stale[bot]]

Thanks for contributing to this issue. As it has been 90 days since the last activity, we are automatically marking is as stale. If this issue is not relevant or applicable anymore (problem has been fixed in a new version or similar), please close the issue or let us know so we can close it. On the contrary, if the issue is still relevant, there is nothing you need to do, but if you have any additional details or context which would help us when working on this issue, please include it as a comment to this issue.