testcontainers-go
testcontainers-go copied to clipboard
test for sql wait strategy
The wait.ForSQL wait strategy does not have a testcase and I forgot about how to use it as well.
I decided to write it in preparation for the work/discussion ongoing here: #166
Codecov Report
Merging #214 (18f86e4) into main (7d0afb7) will increase coverage by
6.51%. The diff coverage is30.43%.
:exclamation: Current head 18f86e4 differs from pull request most recent head 4c77f11. Consider uploading reports for the commit 4c77f11 to get more accurate results
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #214 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 68.88% 75.40% +6.51%
==========================================
Files 22 23 +1
Lines 2144 2500 +356
==========================================
+ Hits 1477 1885 +408
+ Misses 528 484 -44
+ Partials 139 131 -8
| Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| testing.go | 0.00% <ø> (ø) |
|
| wait/sql.go | 21.66% <23.52%> (-3.34%) |
:arrow_down: |
| wait/host_port.go | 47.47% <40.00%> (-0.95%) |
:arrow_down: |
| compose.go | 74.04% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
| wait/all.go | 0.00% <0.00%> (ø) |
|
| container.go | 84.40% <0.00%> (+3.68%) |
:arrow_up: |
| docker.go | 84.75% <0.00%> (+13.92%) |
:arrow_up: |
:mega: We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more
Deploy Preview for testcontainers-go ready!
| Name | Link |
|---|---|
| Latest commit | 4c77f11c78994c652b1d319c9bffd86f143281c2 |
| Latest deploy log | https://app.netlify.com/sites/testcontainers-go/deploys/640a0ad618c3780009d9817a |
| Deploy Preview | https://deploy-preview-214--testcontainers-go.netlify.app |
| Preview on mobile | Toggle QR Code...Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link. |
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! 
0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells
No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication
I think I'm going to close this issue, as it's changing the default timeout values.
I'd reopen it if we receive issues for the wait.ForSQL to fail under low timeout values.
Thanks for your work here.