Potential fixes for 2 code quality findings#2713
Conversation
…pec.rb from Copilot Autofix Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <223894421+github-code-quality[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
…pec.rb from Copilot Autofix Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <223894421+github-code-quality[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Important Review skippedDraft detected. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
cf-foundation-community-automation
Bot
moved this to Inbox
in Foundational Infrastructure Working Group
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR addresses two code-quality findings in bosh-nats-sync specs by (1) introducing tempfiles to provide subject-file paths for director/HM certificate subjects and (2) fixing a typo in a scenario description.
Changes:
- Add tempfiles in
users_sync_specto write sample director/HM subject contents and pass their file paths into config. - Fix grammar in a
describeblock title (“there are is” → “there is”).
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| let(:sample_director_subject) do | ||
| file = Tempfile.new('director_subject') | ||
| file.write(director_subject) | ||
| file.flush | ||
| file.path | ||
| end | ||
| let(:sample_hm_subject) do | ||
| file = Tempfile.new('hm_subject') | ||
| file.write(hm_subject) | ||
| file.flush | ||
| file.path | ||
| end | ||
| let(:director_subject_file) { sample_director_subject } | ||
| let(:hm_subject_file) { sample_hm_subject } |
This PR applies 2/2 suggestions from code quality AI findings.