[PM-18088] Add unit test coverage for admin methods on CiphersController and CipherService #5460
+1,297
−0
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
…d soft delete methods
- Add tests for provider user scenarios in admin cipher management methods - Implement tests for custom user with edit any collection permissions - Add test coverage for RestrictProviderAccess feature flag - Improve test scenarios for delete, soft delete, and restore operations
…llection permission checks - Extend CiphersControllerTests with scenarios for custom users without EditAnyCollection permission - Add test methods to verify NotFoundException is thrown when EditAnyCollection is false - Cover delete, soft delete, and restore operations for single and bulk cipher admin actions
- Add test methods for admin and owner roles with specific cipher access scenarios - Implement tests for accessing specific and unassigned ciphers - Extend test coverage for delete, soft delete, and restore operations - Improve test method naming for clarity and precision
…nassigned ciphers - Implement test methods for DeleteManyAdmin and PutDeleteManyAdmin - Cover scenarios for owner and admin roles with access to specific and unassigned ciphers - Verify correct invocation of DeleteManyAsync and SoftDeleteManyAsync methods - Enhance test coverage for bulk cipher admin operations
|
|
New Issues (27)Checkmarx found the following issues in this Pull Request
Fixed Issues (11)Great job! The following issues were fixed in this Pull Request
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## ac/pm-18087/add-cipher-permissions-to-response-models #5460 +/- ##
=========================================================================================
+ Coverage 44.44% 44.60% +0.16%
=========================================================================================
Files 1531 1531
Lines 71086 71086
Branches 6373 6373
=========================================================================================
+ Hits 31593 31707 +114
+ Misses 38125 38009 -116
- Partials 1368 1370 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
r-tome
changed the base branch from
ac/pm-18087/add-cipher-permissions-to-response-models
to
main
r-tome
changed the base branch from
main
to
ac/pm-18087/add-cipher-permissions-to-response-models
nick-livefront
approved these changes
Mar 5, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in 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.
🎟️ Tracking
https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-18088
📔 Objective
To begin implementing the changes for PM-18088, I wanted to write unit tests first. However, since none existed, this PR focuses on adding test coverage for the current implementation.
⏰ Reminders before review
🦮 Reviewer guidelines
:+1:) or similar for great changes:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info:question:) for questions:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion:art:) for suggestions / improvements:x:) or:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes