- Refactoring without tests makes it riskier
- Move some tests from resolver to middleware unit tests to live closer
to where the validation happens, remove duplicate tests
- DRY out code
- Update seed file with more human readable imageAspectRatios
- Remove copy script from Dockerfile to not expose to others. we'll need
to either start a maintenance server, so it has access to both the
backend/public/uploads and cypher-shell, or copy a script to the backend
that creates a csv, which can be copied to the neo4j pod and then loaded
into the cypher.
- Remove unintended changes to deployment/legacy-migration
- Add back image compression to Post images
We had this error in our neo4j pod recently:
```
2019-12-02 08:29:42.680+0000 ERROR Unable to schedule bolt session 'bolt-1018230' for execution since there are no available threads to serve it at the moment. You can retry at a later time or consider increasing max thread pool size for bolt connector(s).
2019-12-02 08:29:42.680+0000 ERROR Unable to schedule bolt session 'bolt-1018224' for execution since there are no available threads to serve it at the moment. You can retry at a later time or consider increasing max thread pool size for bolt connector(s).
2019-12-02 08:29:42.681+0000 ERROR Unable to schedule bolt session 'bolt-1018352' for execution since there are no available threads to serve it at the moment. You can retry at a later time or consider increasing max thread pool size for bolt connector(s).
2019-12-02 08:29:42.682+0000 ERROR Unable to schedule bolt session 'bolt-1018243' for execution since there are no available threads to serve it at the moment. You can retry at a later time or consider increasing max thread pool size for bolt connector(s).
```
Apparently the default is 400 threads. So we must have a leak somewhere.
Ok, so here is the plan. Let's give both our cucumber features and your
cypress tests a prominent place to live. That would be the root level
folder of our application. Second, let's revive formerly dead code step
by step.
Ie. move code from the former location `backend/features/` to `features/`
when it is ready. All edge cases should be tested with unit tests in
`backend/`, see my `webfinger.spec.js` as an example.
- update script
- use readTxResult for validateReview
- favor more verbose variables
- do not set review.closed as we close the report and the rule at the
moment is set to 'latestReviewUpdatedAtRules' rule, so it's clear the
last review must have been the one that closed the report
- Set up/tear down should not needlessly run http requests. These tests
are not designed to test that the report/review process works as
expected. that is the job of their respective unit tests/e2e tests.
- Don't throw error if a report already exists since we use MERGE and
that does not create a new resource if it exists. That is tested at the
neo4j(database) level.
- We also have a test to make in reports.spec.js that no duplicate is
created to ensure we didn't make some error on our part.
- Fix some faulty logic in validateReview
I had a chat with our moderator Daniel. He asks us to remove dots from
gmail accounts. He finds it more consistent and he has no problem to
write a mail to a gmail address without dots. He is OK to save the
email address different from how a user memorizes it.
- we were making multiple http requests to report resources in this
test, now we are bypassing these requests by setting the database up to
how we want to test, then testing what we want in isolation.
- also added tests for closing a report
- favor union for returning resource
- simplify review mutation
- moved to Report node, as the report was reviewed by the moderator...
a resource can have many reports on them, so we are interested in
grouping reviewed/filed by report
- return Claim instead of setting more properties on relationship
REPORTED
- use readTransaction for query to benefit from autmatic retries, follow
neo4j suggestion
- use map instead of forEach https://codeburst.io/javascript-map-vs-foreach-f38111822c0f
- We have been using http requests in our set up in this file, which can
be avoided. We are not trying to test that the report/review workflow
works properly here, we are trying to test that if a resource was
reported, and then disabled, some conditions are true. Certainly, we
will have tests that check that the report, review workflow works as
expected.
