Skip to content

Conversation

@afuetterer
Copy link
Contributor

@afuetterer afuetterer commented Nov 4, 2025

Description

Related issue: #566

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Checklist

  • I have read the contributor guide.
  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.

@afuetterer afuetterer marked this pull request as draft November 4, 2025 14:34
@afuetterer afuetterer mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2025
def test_check_unique_metadata_identifier(fair_check: FAIRCheck) -> None:
result = fair_check.check_unique_metadata_identifier()
expected = {"guid": UID, "guid_scheme": "doi"}
expected = {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this output expected? It makes the test pass.

But it looks redundant to me. Can you please confirm?

    expected = {
        "unique_identifiers": [{"guid": UID, "guid_scheme": "doi", "target": "metadata"}],
        "guid": UID,
        "guid_scheme": "doi",
    }

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is indeed redundant already within the swagger yaml:

Uniqueness_output:
  type: object
  properties:
    unique_identifiers:
      type: array
      items:
        $ref: '#/components/schemas/Uniqueness_output_inner'
    guid:
      type: string
    guid_scheme:
      type: string

Uniqueness_output_inner:
  type: object
  properties:
    guid:
      type: string
    guid_scheme:
      type: string
    target:
      type: string

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But according to this, the test looks correct

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see. How to deal with this? Accept the redundancy?

I broke down this large PR into manageable chunks, the fix discussed here was merged yesterday via #568

@afuetterer afuetterer changed the title test: remove failing test test: remove failing test cases Nov 13, 2025
@afuetterer afuetterer marked this pull request as ready for review November 13, 2025 08:08
@afuetterer
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR is ready for review. Tests are passing, due to removing failing tests.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants