PSS: Add tests showing state subcommands being used with PSS
#37891
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
SarahFrench
added
the
no-changelog-needed
SarahFrench
commented
Nov 12, 2025
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note: the test will still need to build the appropriate binary and put it in a folder here that's named appropriately for the platform that is running the test.
Member
Author
|
Ooh, actually I'm going to add a non-E2E version of the tests to help with code coverage reporting, moving to draft. |
SarahFrench
changed the title
state subcommands being used with PSSstate show and state list subcommands being used with PSS
SarahFrench
changed the title
state show and state list subcommands being used with PSSstate show and state list subcommands being used with PSS
SarahFrench
changed the title
state show and state list subcommands being used with PSSstate subcommands being used with PSS
SarahFrench
force-pushed
the
pss/pss-with-state-commands
branch
from
42c2a77 to
28e61ce
Compare
…ing tests where the values in `MockStates` aren't compatible with the `ReadStateBytesFn` default function. Make existing test set an appropriate value in `MockStates`.
…h pluggable state storage code.
…h pluggable state storage code.
…h pluggable state storage code.
…on with pluggable state storage code.
…pluggable state storage code.
…pluggable state storage code.
SarahFrench
force-pushed
the
pss/pss-with-state-commands
branch
from
28e61ce to
cebf4a5
Compare
…h pluggable state storage code.
…egration with pluggable state storage code.
…mand under test. This test fixure is reused across tests that need the config to define a state store but otherwise rely on the mock provider to set up the test scenario.
SarahFrench
commented
Nov 24, 2025
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The push command has its own test fixture, versus the shared internal/command/testdata/state-commands-state-store, because it needs a local state file to be the data that's pushed up to the state store.
The internal/command/testdata/state-commands-state-store and internal/command/testdata/state-store-unchanged test fixtures are the same.
…using grpcwrap package This was removed, incorrectly, in #37899
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Following #37569, this PR demonstrates that these commands work when pluggable state storage is in use:
state identitiesstate liststate mvstate replace-providerstate rmstate pullstate pushstate showThis PR mostly implements integration tests, but adds E2E tests for
state listandstate show.Target Release
N/A
Rollback Plan
Changes to Security Controls
Are there any changes to security controls (access controls, encryption, logging) in this pull request? If so, explain.
CHANGELOG entry