Fix: 404 expectations for custom router error pages #930
Conversation
This file contains 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
In case operators are overriding their router's error pages, we should not check for a specific string. However, the presence of "404" on a 404 error page is probably a safe assumption to make.
davewalter
approved these changes
Oct 12, 2023
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Are you submitting this PR against the develop branch?
Yes
What is this change about?
Our helpers only return response bodies, not response statuses. This means that if we want to check for a 404 error, for instance, we need to check the body for a 404 error. However, some operators override their router's error pages, which break our expectations, if they're too specific.
This makes our 404 expectations less specific by reducing our assumptions about the error page returned from "it contains
404 Not Found", to "it contains404". The latter seems like a pretty safe assumption to make.Please provide contextual information.
Closes #929
What version of cf-deployment have you run this cf-acceptance-test change against?
None yet
Please check all that apply for this PR:
Did you update the README as appropriate for this change?
If you are introducing a new acceptance test, what is your rationale for including it CATs rather than your own acceptance test suite?
N/A
How many more (or fewer) seconds of runtime will this change introduce to CATs?
None
What is the level of urgency for publishing this change?
Tag your pair, your PM, and/or team!
None