test: make GraphQL server test more reliable

[cbaker6]

New Pull Request Checklist

• I am not disclosing a vulnerability.
• I am creating this PR in reference to an issue.

Issue Description

This test randomly fails and has a comment attached to it mentioning the relevant issue.

Related issue: #7180

Approach

Instead of removing the test, adapt to functions current behavior to ensure it passes, but ensures the code it's testing always behaves the way it currently behaves. The modification will still detect if an added feature breaks.

I attempted to remove the random failure in the graph tests by changing:

parse-server/spec/ParseGraphQLServer.spec.js

Lines 2597 to 2607 in 191d80b

	// NOTE: Here @davimacedo tried to test RelayID order, but the test is wrong since
	// "objectId1" < "objectId2" do not always keep the order when objectId is transformed
	// to base64 by Relay
	// "SecondaryObject:bBRgmzIRRM" < "SecondaryObject:nTMcuVbATY" true
	// base64("SecondaryObject:bBRgmzIRRM"") < base64(""SecondaryObject:nTMcuVbATY"") false
	// "U2Vjb25kYXJ5T2JqZWN0OmJCUmdteklSUk0=" < "U2Vjb25kYXJ5T2JqZWN0Om5UTWN1VmJBVFk=" false
	expect(
	findSecondaryObjectsResult.data.secondaryObjects.edges[0].node.objectId
	).toBeLessThan(
	findSecondaryObjectsResult.data.secondaryObjects.edges[1].node.objectId
	);

to:

// NOTE: Here @davimacedo tried to test RelayID order, but the test is wrong since
// "objectId1" < "objectId2" do not always keep the order when objectId is transformed
// to base64 by Relay
// "SecondaryObject:bBRgmzIRRM" < "SecondaryObject:nTMcuVbATY" true
// base64("SecondaryObject:bBRgmzIRRM"") < base64(""SecondaryObject:nTMcuVbATY"") false
// "U2Vjb25kYXJ5T2JqZWN0OmJCUmdteklSUk0=" < "U2Vjb25kYXJ5T2JqZWN0Om5UTWN1VmJBVFk=" false
 const originalIds = [getSecondaryObjectsResult.data.secondaryObject2.objectId,
      getSecondaryObjectsResult.data.secondaryObject4.objectId];
 expect(
                findSecondaryObjectsResult.data.secondaryObjects.edges[0].node.objectId
 ).not.toBe(
                findSecondaryObjectsResult.data.secondaryObjects.edges[1].node.objectId
 );
 expect(
                originalIds.includes(findSecondaryObjectsResult.data.secondaryObjects.edges[0].node.objectId)
 ).toBeTrue();
 expect(
                originalIds.includes(findSecondaryObjectsResult.data.secondaryObjects.edges[1].node.objectId)
 ).toBeTrue();

The change doesn't check for order, but it seems from your comment that's something you want to fix in the future.

TODOs before merging

• Add tests
• A changelog entry is created automatically using the pull request title (do not manually add a changelog entry)

[parse-github-assistant]

Thanks for opening this pull request!

• 🎉 We are excited about your hands-on contribution!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #7758 (7d10dce) into alpha (b106ffc) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            alpha    #7758   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.95%   93.96%           
=======================================
  Files         183      183           
  Lines       13640    13640           
=======================================
+ Hits        12816    12817    +1     
+ Misses        824      823    -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/batch.js	93.10% <0.00%> (+1.72%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b106ffc...7d10dce. Read the comment docs.

[mtrezza]

@cbaker6 Thanks for taking the time to split into individual PRs. I don't want to merge anything prematurely, so whenever a PR is ready please feel free to request a review from parse-community/server-review.

[mtrezza]

Changed commit type to test in PR title because this PR only touches tests and does not touch any product code.

[cbaker6]

@mtrezza i don’t have privileges to request a review on this repo, but it’s ready for review. I can only request a review after someone has been assigned or started a review already.

[mtrezza]

Yes, we should look into how we can make requesting reviews more accessible. That's an ongoing issue due to the inflexible GitHub permission concept. Maybe you can just mention @parse-community/server-review in a comment meanwhile.

[mtrezza]

Looks good!

[parseplatformorg]

🎉 This change has been released in version 5.0.0-alpha.15

[parseplatformorg]

🎉 This change has been released in version 5.0.0-beta.10

[parseplatformorg]

🎉 This change has been released in version 5.1.0