Skip to content

Conversation

@Vagoasdf
Copy link
Contributor

Previously we had a limitation where we would require the access request before running an erasure request on polling. This is no longer the case, but the test was not updated to reflect that. Now it has been

Description Of Changes

Removing additional call and test checks on the access requests

Code Changes

  • Updated Test suite

Steps to Confirm

  1. Run pytest tests/integration/workflows/test_privacy_request_with_async_polling.py and verify that the test is passing correctly

Pre-Merge Checklist

  • Issue requirements met
  • All CI pipelines succeeded
  • CHANGELOG.md updated
    • Add a db-migration This indicates that a change includes a database migration label to the entry if your change includes a DB migration
    • Add a high-risk This issue suggests changes that have a high-probability of breaking existing code label to the entry if your change includes a high-risk change (i.e. potential for performance impact or unexpected regression) that should be flagged
    • Updates unreleased work already in Changelog, no new entry necessary
  • UX feedback:
    • All UX related changes have been reviewed by a designer
    • No UX review needed
  • Followup issues:
    • Followup issues created
    • No followup issues
  • Database migrations:
    • Ensure that your downrev is up to date with the latest revision on main
    • Ensure that your downgrade() migration is correct and works
      • If a downgrade migration is not possible for this change, please call this out in the PR description!
    • No migrations
  • Documentation:
    • Documentation complete, PR opened in fidesdocs
    • Documentation issue created in fidesdocs
    • If there are any new client scopes created as part of the pull request, remember to update public-facing documentation that references our scope registry
    • No documentation updates required

Previously we had a limitation where we would require the access request before running an erasure request on polling. This is no longer the case, but the test was not updated to reflect that. Now it has been
@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Nov 20, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

2 Skipped Deployments
Project Deployment Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
fides-plus-nightly Ignored Ignored Nov 20, 2025 2:51pm
fides-privacy-center Ignored Ignored Nov 20, 2025 2:51pm

@Vagoasdf Vagoasdf marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2025 14:59
@greptile-apps
Copy link
Contributor

greptile-apps bot commented Nov 20, 2025

Greptile Overview

Greptile Summary

Updated test_erasure_privacy_request_with_async_polling to remove access request polling steps and validation. Previously, erasure requests required completing an access request first, but this limitation was removed in commit 0a56a1f (ENG-1695). The test now correctly reflects the current behavior where erasure requests run independently without requiring access requests.

Changes:

  • Removed duplicate wait for in_processing status and requeue operation
  • Removed all assertions validating access request results (get_raw_access_results() and attachment validation)
  • Kept only the erasure-specific validation (get_raw_masking_counts())

Confidence Score: 5/5

  • This PR is safe to merge with no risk
  • The changes correctly update the test to match the actual behavior after commit 0a56a1f removed the requirement for access requests before erasure requests. The test now properly validates only erasure-specific functionality without checking for access request results that are no longer generated
  • No files require special attention

Important Files Changed

File Analysis

Filename Score Overview
tests/integration/workflows/test_privacy_request_with_async_polling.py 5/5 Removed unnecessary access request polling and validation from erasure test, correctly reflecting that erasure requests no longer require access requests to run first

Copy link
Contributor

@greptile-apps greptile-apps bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

1 file reviewed, no comments

Edit Code Review Agent Settings | Greptile

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 20, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 87.31%. Comparing base (9042667) to head (bc00bd1).
⚠️ Report is 35 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7008   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.31%   87.31%           
=======================================
  Files         525      525           
  Lines       34526    34526           
  Branches     3986     3986           
=======================================
  Hits        30148    30148           
  Misses       3511     3511           
  Partials      867      867           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@Vagoasdf Vagoasdf requested a review from Linker44 December 2, 2025 18:40
@Vagoasdf Vagoasdf added this pull request to the merge queue Dec 2, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 9b998f2 Dec 2, 2025
69 checks passed
@Vagoasdf Vagoasdf deleted the FIX_updating_test_privacy_request_polling.py branch December 2, 2025 19:39
jjdaurora pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants