FQM-289: Use logical models for server response validation#121
Merged
Conversation
tstrass
requested changes
Jun 24, 2026
Contributor
|
@Jammjammjamm I've done an initial review as I'm out on vacation starting tomorrow afternoon. Nothing looks concerning at this stage to me. Documentation addition in the wiki looks good. If you need to merge this while I'm out, go ahead. |
tstrass
approved these changes
Jun 25, 2026
arscan
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2026
Contributor
|
Merging per OK from Karl in comment #121 (comment) |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
This branch updates the server response validation tests to use the logical models. The old validation is still performed because the remaining response tests rely on associated code. An immediate follow-up to this PR will refactor the remaining response tests to remove the old validation code.
Testing Guidance
The server tests should still pass when run against the client suite.
Anticipated Provider-side Test Impact
One of the simulated server responses had to be updated to match the intent rather than the content of the logical models. These changes should not introduce any new failures in the client suite when run against the server suite.
@karlnaden I added a new wiki page with these logical models fixes to the documentation update PR.