The TODO should be more specific. Instead of just saying "Update/uncomment", it should specify what values need to be updated and why. For example, it could say "Update these variables to reflect your project and desired schedule configuration."

Similar to the create script, this TODO should be more specific about what needs to be updated.

The delete test should be run before the create test, or there should be a setup step that creates a snapshot schedule before running any tests, since the delete test depends on a snapshot schedule existing.

isn't there a create snapshot schedule right before this? can you explain more what you are suggesting here?

You're right to point out the dependency. The delete test relies on a snapshot schedule already existing. While there's a create test preceding it, there's no guarantee that the create test will always succeed before the delete test runs. To make the tests more robust and independent, I suggest either reordering the tests (running delete after create) or adding a setup function that creates a snapshot schedule before the tests begin and tears it down afterward. Reordering is simpler in this case.

@gryczj this is a good point (see last comment) can you identify a path forwards to resolve this?

To resolve this, the simplest approach is to reorder the tests within the describe block in snapshotSchedule.test.js. The create test should run before the delete test to ensure the snapshot schedule exists before attempting to delete it. This avoids the need for a more complex setup/teardown function.

Here's how you can modify the test file:

describe('Snapshot schedule', async () => {
  // ... (rest of your code)

  it('should create snapshot schedule', () => { ... });

  it('should delete snapshot schedule', () => { ... });
});

This ensures the tests are executed in the correct order, making the test suite more reliable.

but this solution is already in the code. create-snapshot-test is called before delete-snapshot-test

@iennae fixed

Maybe add a link, so it's easier for users to review that method.

@m-strzelczyk link to the docuemntation added