(t *testing.T)
| 69 | } |
| 70 | |
| 71 | func TestSecretInspectWithoutFormat(t *testing.T) { |
| 72 | testCases := []struct { |
| 73 | name string |
| 74 | args []string |
| 75 | secretInspectFunc func(ctx context.Context, secretID string, _ client.SecretInspectOptions) (client.SecretInspectResult, error) |
| 76 | }{ |
| 77 | { |
| 78 | name: "single-secret", |
| 79 | args: []string{"foo"}, |
| 80 | secretInspectFunc: func(_ context.Context, name string, _ client.SecretInspectOptions) (client.SecretInspectResult, error) { |
| 81 | if name != "foo" { |
| 82 | return client.SecretInspectResult{}, fmt.Errorf("invalid name, expected %s, got %s", "foo", name) |
| 83 | } |
| 84 | return client.SecretInspectResult{ |
| 85 | Secret: *builders.Secret(builders.SecretID("ID-foo"), builders.SecretName("foo")), |
| 86 | }, nil |
| 87 | }, |
| 88 | }, |
| 89 | { |
| 90 | name: "multiple-secrets-with-labels", |
| 91 | args: []string{"foo", "bar"}, |
| 92 | secretInspectFunc: func(_ context.Context, name string, _ client.SecretInspectOptions) (client.SecretInspectResult, error) { |
| 93 | return client.SecretInspectResult{ |
| 94 | Secret: *builders.Secret(builders.SecretID("ID-"+name), builders.SecretName(name), builders.SecretLabels(map[string]string{ |
| 95 | "label1": "label-foo", |
| 96 | })), |
| 97 | }, nil |
| 98 | }, |
| 99 | }, |
| 100 | } |
| 101 | for _, tc := range testCases { |
| 102 | t.Run(tc.name, func(t *testing.T) { |
| 103 | cli := test.NewFakeCli(&fakeClient{ |
| 104 | secretInspectFunc: tc.secretInspectFunc, |
| 105 | }) |
| 106 | cmd := newSecretInspectCommand(cli) |
| 107 | cmd.SetArgs(tc.args) |
| 108 | assert.NilError(t, cmd.Execute()) |
| 109 | golden.Assert(t, cli.OutBuffer().String(), fmt.Sprintf("secret-inspect-without-format.%s.golden", tc.name)) |
| 110 | }) |
| 111 | } |
| 112 | } |
| 113 | |
| 114 | func TestSecretInspectWithFormat(t *testing.T) { |
| 115 | secretInspectFunc := func(_ context.Context, name string, _ client.SecretInspectOptions) (client.SecretInspectResult, error) { |
nothing calls this directly
no test coverage detected
searching dependent graphs…