feat(MTV-664): add insecureSkipVerify plan-readiness test

[krcmarik]

Add a 4-step plan-readiness test verifying a source provider with insecureSkipVerify=true reaches Ready status. Follows the existing ca_crt fixture pattern with unique fixture names
(insecure_source_provider, insecure_source_provider_inventory).

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Added cold migration coverage for source environments configured to skip TLS certificate verification.
  • Verified security settings and successful creation of migration mapping resources and Plans.
  • Added validation for both standard and RHV source environments.
  • Added a RHEL8 virtual machine migration scenario with cloning disabled.
  • Confirmed required resources are created successfully before migration readiness is assessed.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 4d41b762-6f36-4800-8a2c-09681340db03

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a792fd2 and e6b6651.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• tests/tests_config/config.py

---

Walkthrough

Adds cold migration coverage for source providers with insecureSkipVerify=true. The tests validate the provider Secret and create StorageMap, NetworkMap, and Plan resources for standard providers and RHV.

Changes

Insecure cold migration

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Provider and migration setup tests/cold/conftest.py, tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py, tests/tests_config/config.py	Adds insecure source provider and inventory fixtures. Defines standard-provider and RHV cold migration configurations, including the RHEL8 VM fixture.
Secret and migration resource validation tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py	Validates the decoded insecureSkipVerify Secret value and creates StorageMap, NetworkMap, and Plan resources for both provider variants.

Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~20 minutes

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
  participant Test
  participant SourceProvider
  participant ForkliftInventory
  participant MigrationResources
  Test->>SourceProvider: Create provider with insecureSkipVerify=true
  Test->>SourceProvider: Validate provider Secret
  Test->>ForkliftInventory: Create inventory
  Test->>MigrationResources: Create StorageMap and NetworkMap
  Test->>MigrationResources: Create MTV Plan

Loading

Possibly related PRs

• RedHatQE/mtv-api-tests#563: Adds similar cold-migration fixtures and tests for the provider Secret ca.crt field.

Suggested reviewers: myakove, solenoci

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the addition of an insecureSkipVerify plan-readiness test, which matches the primary changes and objectives.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[redhat-qe-bot1]

Report bugs in Issues

Welcome! 🎉

This pull request will be automatically processed with the following features:

🔄 Automatic Actions

• Reviewer Assignment: Reviewers are automatically assigned based on the OWNERS file in the repository root
• Size Labeling: PR size labels (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL) are automatically applied based on changes
• Issue Creation: Disabled for this repository
• Branch Labeling: Branch-specific labels are applied to track the target branch
• Auto-verification: Auto-verified users have their PRs automatically marked as verified
• Labels: All label categories are enabled (default configuration)

📋 Available Commands

PR Status Management

• /wip - Mark PR as work in progress (adds WIP: prefix to title)
• /wip cancel - Remove work in progress status
• /hold - Block PR merging (PR author or approvers)
• /hold cancel - Unblock PR merging (PR author or approvers)
• /verified - Mark PR as verified
• /verified cancel - Remove verification status
• /reprocess - Trigger complete PR workflow reprocessing (useful if webhook failed or configuration changed)
• /regenerate-welcome - Regenerate this welcome message
• /security-override - Set security check runs to pass (maintainers only)
• /security-override cancel - Re-run security checks

Review & Approval

• /lgtm - Approve changes (looks good to me)
• /approve - Approve PR (approvers only)
• /automerge - Enable automatic merging when all requirements are met (maintainers and approvers only)
• /assign-reviewers - Assign reviewers based on OWNERS file
• /assign-reviewer @username - Assign specific reviewer
• /check-can-merge - Check if PR meets merge requirements

Testing & Validation

• /retest tox - Run Python test suite with tox
• /retest build-container - Rebuild and test container image
• /retest conventional-title - Validate commit message format
• /retest all - Run all available tests

Container Operations

• /build-and-push-container - Build and push container image (tagged with PR number)
  • Supports additional build arguments: /build-and-push-container --build-arg KEY=value

Cherry-pick Operations

• /cherry-pick <branch> - Schedule cherry-pick to target branch when PR is merged
  • Multiple branches: /cherry-pick branch1 branch2 branch3
• /cherry-pick-retry <branch> - Retry a failed cherry-pick (merged PRs only)

Branch Management

• /rebase - Rebase this PR branch onto its base branch

Label Management

• /<label-name> - Add a label to the PR
• /<label-name> cancel - Remove a label from the PR

✅ Merge Requirements

This PR will be automatically approved when the following conditions are met:

1. Approval: /approve from at least one approver
2. Status Checks: All required status checks must pass
3. No Blockers: No wip, hold, has-conflicts labels and PR must be mergeable (no conflicts)
4. Verified: PR must be marked as verified

📊 Review Process

Approvers and Reviewers

Approvers:

• krcmarik
• myakove
• solenoci

Reviewers:

• krcmarik
• myakove
• solenoci

Available Labels

• hold
• verified
• wip
• lgtm
• approve
• automerge

AI Features

• Conventional Title: Mode: fix (claude/claude-opus-4-6-1m)
• Cherry-Pick Conflict Resolution: Enabled (claude/claude-opus-4-6-1m)
• Test Oracle: Triggers: approved (cursor/gpt-5.4-xhigh-fast); /test-oracle can be used anytime

Security Checks

• Suspicious Path Detection: Monitors paths: .claude/, .vscode/, .cursor/, .devcontainer/, .pi/, .github/workflows/, .github/actions/
• Committer Identity Check: Verifies last committer matches PR author
• Mandatory: Security checks block merge (use /security-override to bypass — maintainers only)

💡 Tips

• WIP Status: Use /wip when your PR is not ready for review
• Verification: The verified label is removed on new commits unless the push is detected as a clean rebase
• Cherry-picking: Cherry-pick labels are processed when the PR is merged
• Container Builds: Container images are automatically tagged with the PR number
• Permission Levels: Some commands require approver permissions
• Auto-verified Users: Certain users have automatic verification and merge privileges

For more information, please refer to the project documentation or contact the maintainers.

[qodo-code-review]

PR Summary by Qodo

Add insecureSkipVerify plan-readiness cold migration test (MTV-664)

🧪 Tests ⚙️ Configuration changes 🕐 20-40 Minutes

AI Description

• Add class-scoped fixtures for an insecureSkipVerify source provider and inventory.
• Add a 4-step cold plan-readiness test validating insecureSkipVerify propagates via Secret.
• Add test configuration entry to run the new plan-readiness scenario without cloning.

Diagram

graph TD
  T["tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py"] --> F["tests/cold/conftest.py"] --> P(["SourceProvider (insecure)"]) --> S[("Provider Secret")]
  P --> I(["ForkliftInventory"]) --> M(["StorageMap + NetworkMap"]) --> R(["Plan Ready status"])

  subgraph Legend
    direction LR
    _file["Test/fixture file"] ~~~ _res(["MTV/K8s resource"]) ~~~ _sec[("Secret")]
  end

Loading

High-Level Assessment

The following are alternative approaches to this PR:

1. Parameterize an existing plan-readiness test over TLS modes

• ➕ Avoids duplicating plan/map creation logic across TLS scenarios
• ➕ Makes it easier to add future provider-secret flags with minimal new code
• ➖ May reduce readability if the existing test has many provider-specific branches
• ➖ Requires refactoring shared helpers/fixtures first

2. Validate provider readiness directly (Provider CR status) without creating a Plan

• ➕ Faster and more focused on insecureSkipVerify propagation to provider connection
• ➕ Less resource setup/teardown (no maps/plan)
• ➖ May not cover the end-to-end path that plan readiness exercises
• ➖ Could miss regressions where provider works but plan readiness logic fails

Recommendation: The PR’s current approach (Secret assertion + maps + Plan readiness) is the strongest end-to-end signal that insecureSkipVerify is honored by Forklift. If this pattern repeats for additional provider flags, consider consolidating into a parameterized plan-readiness test to reduce duplication while keeping the explicit Secret assertion.

Files changed (3) +226 / -0

Tests (2) +218 / -0

conftest.pyAdd fixtures for insecureSkipVerify source provider and inventory +63/-0

Add fixtures for insecureSkipVerify source provider and inventory

• Introduces class-scoped fixtures to create a source provider with insecureSkipVerify enabled and a matching ForkliftInventory. Follows the existing provider/inventory fixture pattern and ensures provider disconnect on teardown.

tests/cold/conftest.py

test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.pyAdd 4-step plan-readiness test for insecureSkipVerify=true (MTV-664) +155/-0

Add 4-step plan-readiness test for insecureSkipVerify=true (MTV-664)

• Adds a tier1 incremental cold test that asserts the provider Secret contains insecureSkipVerify="true", then creates StorageMap/NetworkMap and a Plan using the insecure provider setup. The test is scoped to readiness validation and does not execute an actual migration.

tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py

Other (1) +8 / -0

config.pyRegister new insecureSkipVerify cold migration test config +8/-0

Register new insecureSkipVerify cold migration test config

• Adds a new test parameter block for test_insecure_skip_verify_cold_migration and sets skip_clone to avoid cloning during test setup. Aligns with existing test config structure for VM selection and warm_migration flag.

tests/tests_config/config.py

[qodo-code-review]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (0) 📘 Rule violations (1) 📜 Skill insights (0)

1. skip_clone breaks RHV ✓ Resolved 🐞 Bug ≡ Correctness

Description

The PR sets skip_clone=True for the new insecureSkipVerify plan config (and also the existing ca_crt
config), but RHV providers return supports_skip_clone=False so the class-scoped prepared_plan
fixture raises ValueError and the tests fail in RHV runs. This prevents the new test (and ca_crt
test) from even reaching provider/plan readiness validation on RHV.

Code

tests/tests_config/config.py[R779-780]

+        "warm_migration": False,
+        "skip_clone": True,

Relevance

●●● Strong

Skip-clone/RHV incompatibility and related fail-fast validations have been accepted fixes in this
repo.

PR-#619

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

The plan configs added/modified by this PR set skip_clone=True. During class-scoped plan
preparation, the shared prepared_plan fixture reads skip_clone and raises if the provider does not
support skipping clone. RHV providers explicitly return False for supports_skip_clone, and the new
test (and the ca_crt test) are both marked to run on RHV, so RHV executions will fail at setup.

tests/tests_config/config.py[768-781]
conftest.py[1136-1152]
libs/providers/rhv.py[381-387]
tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[28-33]
tests/cold/test_ca_crt_migration.py[27-33]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
`skip_clone=True` is configured for tests that are marked to run on RHV, but RHV providers explicitly do not support `skip_clone`. The class-scoped `prepared_plan` fixture validates `skip_clone` and raises a `ValueError` when `source_provider.supports_skip_clone()` is false, causing deterministic RHV failures during fixture setup.

## Issue Context
- RHV provider overrides `supports_skip_clone()` to return `False`.
- `prepared_plan` checks `skip_clone` and raises if unsupported.
- Both `test_ca_crt_cold_migration` and the new `test_insecure_skip_verify_cold_migration` are marked `@pytest.mark.rhv`, so RHV pipelines will select them.

## How to fix
Choose one of these approaches:
1) **Simplest/most portable:** remove `skip_clone` from these two plan configs (or set it to `False`) so RHV runs can clone as usual.
2) **Provider-specific configs:** split the tests_params into RHV vs non-RHV variants and parametrize/select based on provider.
3) **(Less preferred) Skip RHV:** remove the `rhv` marker or add a skip/xfail guard when `source_provider.supports_skip_clone()` is false (this reduces RHV coverage).

## Fix Focus Areas
- tests/tests_config/config.py[768-781]
- conftest.py[1136-1152]
- libs/providers/rhv.py[381-387]
- tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[28-33]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

2. Unsynced insecure inventory ✗ Dismissed 🐞 Bug ☼ Reliability ⭐ New

Description

The RHV insecureSkipVerify test uses insecure_source_provider_inventory to resolve VM IDs and
build StorageMap/NetworkMap, but the VM cloning/sync in prepared_plan only waits on
source_provider_inventory. Since populate_vm_ids() performs immediate inventory.get_vm()
lookups with no retry, the test can intermittently fail when the insecure provider inventory lags
behind.

Code

tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[R271-272]

+        populate_vm_ids(prepared_plan, insecure_source_provider_inventory)
+

Relevance

●● Moderate

Similar “add inventory wait to avoid sync flake” suggestion was rejected previously; but repo often
accepts flake-hardening fixes.

PR-#619

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

prepared_plan waits for cloned VMs only in the default source_provider_inventory (tied to
session-scoped source_provider), but the RHV test queries VM IDs and builds maps using
insecure_source_provider_inventory. populate_vm_ids immediately calls inventory.get_vm() (no
retries), and get_vm() raises if the VM is not present, making the RHV test vulnerable to
inventory-sync timing.

tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[212-233]
tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[260-283]
conftest.py[997-1008]
conftest.py[1269-1280]
conftest.py[1605-1609]
utilities/utils.py[846-866]
libs/forklift_inventory.py[125-134]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

### Issue description
The RHV insecureSkipVerify test clones/prepares VMs via the `prepared_plan` fixture (which waits for cloned VMs only in `source_provider_inventory`), but later queries VM IDs and builds mapping resources using `insecure_source_provider_inventory`. Because Forklift inventory sync is asynchronous per provider and `populate_vm_ids()` does not retry, the test can fail/flap when the insecure provider’s inventory hasn’t yet discovered the cloned VMs.

### Issue Context
- `prepared_plan` waits for cloned VMs in `source_provider_inventory`, not the insecure provider inventory.
- The RHV test uses `insecure_source_provider_inventory` for `get_storage_migration_map`, `get_network_migration_map`, and `populate_vm_ids`.

### Fix Focus Areas
- tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[212-283]

### Suggested fix
In the RHV test class, ensure the VMs in `prepared_plan["virtual_machines"]` exist in `insecure_source_provider_inventory` before calling:
- `get_storage_migration_map(...)`
- `get_network_migration_map(...)`
- `populate_vm_ids(prepared_plan, insecure_source_provider_inventory)`

A minimal approach is to call `insecure_source_provider_inventory.wait_for_vm(name=vm_name, timeout=...)` for each VM name (using the same timeout policy as `prepared_plan`, e.g. `prepared_plan.get("inventory_timeout", 300)`) prior to map creation and/or prior to `populate_vm_ids`.

If you want a more structural fix, consider introducing an insecure-specific prepared-plan fixture (or an override of `source_provider_inventory` in this module) so `prepared_plan` waits on the same provider inventory that the plan/maps will use.

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

3. Plan-readiness split across tests 📘 Rule violation ▣ Testability

Description

The new plan-readiness flow is implemented as four separate test methods instead of a single test
function with the required verify→storagemap→networkmap→plan sequence. This can break the intended
ordered validation and violates the plan-readiness test structure requirement.

Code

tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[R80-83]

+        actual_value = base64.b64decode(secret.instance.data["insecureSkipVerify"]).decode("utf-8")
+        assert actual_value == "true", f"Expected insecureSkipVerify='true', got '{actual_value}'"
+
+    def test_create_storagemap(

Relevance

● Weak

Very similar Rule 1787004 single-function sequencing refactor request was explicitly rejected
previously.

PR-#619

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

PR Compliance ID 1787004 requires plan-readiness tests to include the full
verify→storagemap→networkmap→plan sequence within the same test function. The added file implements
these stages as separate test methods (one per stage), which the rule explicitly disallows.

Rule 1787004: Plan-readiness tests for provider/plan features must follow verify→storagemap→networkmap→plan sequence without migrations
tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[66-155]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
The plan-readiness validation for insecureSkipVerify is split across multiple test methods (`test_verify_insecure_skip_verify`, `test_create_storagemap`, `test_create_networkmap`, `test_create_plan`). The compliance rule requires a single test function that performs all four stages in order (verify→storagemap→networkmap→plan) with no migration stage.

## Issue Context
Because pytest does not guarantee the four tests execute as an atomic ordered sequence (and failures can stop later stages), this structure does not satisfy the required plan-readiness flow.

## Fix Focus Areas
- tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[66-155]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

Context used

✅ Compliance rules (platform): 100 rules

_{To customize comments, go to the Qodo configuration screen, or learn more in the docs.}

Previous review results

Review updated until commit e6b6651

Results up to commit acc0a7a ⚖️ Balanced

🐞 Bugs (0) 📘 Rule violations (1) 📎 Requirement gaps (0) 🎨 UX issues (0) 🔗 Cross-repo conflicts (0) 📜 Skill insights (0)

1. skip_clone breaks RHV ✓ Resolved 🐞 Bug ≡ Correctness

Description

The PR sets skip_clone=True for the new insecureSkipVerify plan config (and also the existing ca_crt
config), but RHV providers return supports_skip_clone=False so the class-scoped prepared_plan
fixture raises ValueError and the tests fail in RHV runs. This prevents the new test (and ca_crt
test) from even reaching provider/plan readiness validation on RHV.

Code

tests/tests_config/config.py[R779-780]

+        "warm_migration": False,
+        "skip_clone": True,

Relevance

●●● Strong

Skip-clone/RHV incompatibility and related fail-fast validations have been accepted fixes in this
repo.

PR-#619

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

The plan configs added/modified by this PR set skip_clone=True. During class-scoped plan
preparation, the shared prepared_plan fixture reads skip_clone and raises if the provider does not
support skipping clone. RHV providers explicitly return False for supports_skip_clone, and the new
test (and the ca_crt test) are both marked to run on RHV, so RHV executions will fail at setup.

tests/tests_config/config.py[768-781]
conftest.py[1136-1152]
libs/providers/rhv.py[381-387]
tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[28-33]
tests/cold/test_ca_crt_migration.py[27-33]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
`skip_clone=True` is configured for tests that are marked to run on RHV, but RHV providers explicitly do not support `skip_clone`. The class-scoped `prepared_plan` fixture validates `skip_clone` and raises a `ValueError` when `source_provider.supports_skip_clone()` is false, causing deterministic RHV failures during fixture setup.

## Issue Context
- RHV provider overrides `supports_skip_clone()` to return `False`.
- `prepared_plan` checks `skip_clone` and raises if unsupported.
- Both `test_ca_crt_cold_migration` and the new `test_insecure_skip_verify_cold_migration` are marked `@pytest.mark.rhv`, so RHV pipelines will select them.

## How to fix
Choose one of these approaches:
1) **Simplest/most portable:** remove `skip_clone` from these two plan configs (or set it to `False`) so RHV runs can clone as usual.
2) **Provider-specific configs:** split the tests_params into RHV vs non-RHV variants and parametrize/select based on provider.
3) **(Less preferred) Skip RHV:** remove the `rhv` marker or add a skip/xfail guard when `source_provider.supports_skip_clone()` is false (this reduces RHV coverage).

## Fix Focus Areas
- tests/tests_config/config.py[768-781]
- conftest.py[1136-1152]
- libs/providers/rhv.py[381-387]
- tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[28-33]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

2. Plan-readiness split across tests 📘 Rule violation ▣ Testability

Description

The new plan-readiness flow is implemented as four separate test methods instead of a single test
function with the required verify→storagemap→networkmap→plan sequence. This can break the intended
ordered validation and violates the plan-readiness test structure requirement.

Code

tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[R80-83]

+        actual_value = base64.b64decode(secret.instance.data["insecureSkipVerify"]).decode("utf-8")
+        assert actual_value == "true", f"Expected insecureSkipVerify='true', got '{actual_value}'"
+
+    def test_create_storagemap(

Relevance

● Weak

Very similar Rule 1787004 single-function sequencing refactor request was explicitly rejected
previously.

PR-#619

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

PR Compliance ID 1787004 requires plan-readiness tests to include the full
verify→storagemap→networkmap→plan sequence within the same test function. The added file implements
these stages as separate test methods (one per stage), which the rule explicitly disallows.

Rule 1787004: Plan-readiness tests for provider/plan features must follow verify→storagemap→networkmap→plan sequence without migrations
tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[66-155]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
The plan-readiness validation for insecureSkipVerify is split across multiple test methods (`test_verify_insecure_skip_verify`, `test_create_storagemap`, `test_create_networkmap`, `test_create_plan`). The compliance rule requires a single test function that performs all four stages in order (verify→storagemap→networkmap→plan) with no migration stage.

## Issue Context
Because pytest does not guarantee the four tests execute as an atomic ordered sequence (and failures can stop later stages), this structure does not satisfy the required plan-readiness flow.

## Fix Focus Areas
- tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py[66-155]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py`:
- Around line 195-200: Update the preparation fixture chain used by
test_verify_insecure_skip_verify and the related tests so plan creation and
Multus discovery use insecure_source_provider and
insecure_source_provider_inventory instead of the normal source-provider
fixtures. Preserve the required class-level indirect fixture chain, changing
only its source-provider branch; add insecure fixture equivalents or
parameterize the existing fixtures accordingly.

🪄 Autofix

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 1efff02d-abdc-4749-bb80-27014a8500e5

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between acc0a7a and a792fd2.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• tests/cold/test_insecure_skip_verify_migration.py
• tests/tests_config/config.py

[qodo-code-review]

Code review by qodo was updated up to the latest commit a792fd2

[qodo-code-review]

No code changes since the last review — review skipped

[krcmarik]

/verified