connection spec v2

[YufengXin]

swagger.yaml absorbing connection request spec v2

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9780622911

Details

• 0 of 276 (0.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 4 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-13.8%) to 63.84%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
sdx_lc/models/connection_qos_unit.py	0	26	0.0%
sdx_lc/models/connection_scheduling.py	0	26	0.0%
sdx_lc/models/connection_qos_metrics.py	0	76	0.0%
sdx_lc/models/connection_v2.py	0	148	0.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 9600447801:	-13.8%
Covered Lines:	978
Relevant Lines:	1481

---

💛 - Coveralls

[sajith]

Test coverage dropped because of the new model files. But I am not quite certain that we are actually using them.

As far as I have understood, the case for these model files is when doing JSON serialization and deserialization. In controller methods, we are not serializing the request bodies to objects of the model classes, nor are we returning such objects. We're mostly working with regular Python dicts and JSON.

The only exception is perhaps the unit tests in sdx-lc. But I made them that way, before I understood that we can use the static JSON files we now have in datamodel.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9877274983

Details

• 221 of 280 (78.93%) changed or added relevant lines in 4 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.6%) to 78.261%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
sdx_lc/models/connection_scheduling.py	24	27	88.89%
sdx_lc/models/connection_qos_unit.py	18	27	66.67%
sdx_lc/models/connection_qos_metrics.py	67	77	87.01%
sdx_lc/models/connection_v2.py	112	149	75.17%

Totals
Change from base Build 9600447801:	0.6%
Covered Lines:	1210
Relevant Lines:	1485

---

💛 - Coveralls