Add testcode to network group behavior

[pott-cho]

Closes: #775

I added test code to clarify the behavior of customer network add/update.
The tests in this PR clarify the following behaviors:

• When adding customer networks, the networkGroup fields (hosts, networks, ranges) are stored in sorted order.
• When adding customer networks, duplicate values within a single networkGroup are removed without an error.
• When adding customer networks, identical networkGroup values across different network entries are allowed (for both insert and update).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 76.85%. Comparing base (a6cc39c) to head (f6b61f3).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #789      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   76.33%   76.85%   +0.52%     
==========================================
  Files          73       73              
  Lines       20293    20520     +227     
==========================================
+ Hits        15490    15770     +280     
+ Misses       4803     4750      -53     

☔ 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.

[octoaide]

Hi @sehkone — this PR (Add testcode to network group behavior, @pott-cho) adds tests clarifying customer-network add/update behavior and closes #775. All CI checks and codecov are green. The branch is mergeable but blocked because GitHub requires at least one approving review from someone with write access and no reviewers are currently assigned. Could you please assign a reviewer or let us know if there's a reason to hold (release timing, broader review plan, etc.)? If you want, I can suggest reviewers or provide any extra context to speed review.

[octoaide]

Hi @sehkone — this PR (#789, author: @pott-cho) adds tests clarifying customer-network add/update behavior and closes #775. All CI checks and codecov are green and the branch is mergeable, but GitHub requires at least one approving review from someone with write access and no reviewers are currently assigned. Could you please assign a reviewer with write access or let us know if there’s a reason to hold this (release timing, broader review plan, etc.)? If helpful, I can suggest reviewers familiar with the networking area to speed review. Thanks!

[sophie-cluml]

I think adding assertions that verify the network entries are actually preserved as intended (e.g., both n1 and n2 exist) would improve the test’s purpose. Similar assertions might be helpful to allow_duplicate_network_groups_on_update as well.

[sophie-cluml]

Suggested change

	// The values inside networkGroup are stored in alphabetical order regardless of the input order.
	// The values inside networkGroup are stored in deterministic sorted order (per type-defined ordering), regardless of input order.

“alphabetical order” is not a perfectly precise term here. To avoid inaccuracies and keep the comment future-proof against implementation changes, please consider the suggestion above.

[sophie-cluml]

Thanks for addressing the earlier test concern.

Two small follow-ups:

• The recursion-limit change in examples/minireview.rs seems orthogonal to #775. Would it make sense to stack this PR on top of #802 instead?
• The new insert/update tests now assert that two network entries remain, but they still do not verify that the preserved entries are actually n1 and n2. Tightening those assertions would make the test intent more direct.

[pott-cho]

Thanks for addressing the earlier test concern.

Two small follow-ups:

• The recursion-limit change in examples/minireview.rs seems orthogonal to Add Validation to Prevent Duplicate Network Ranges per Customer #775. Would it make sense to stack this PR on top of Split GraphQL root merged groups to avoid query-depth overflow (issue #801) #802 instead?
• The new insert/update tests now assert that two network entries remain, but they still do not verify that the preserved entries are actually n1 and n2. Tightening those assertions would make the test intent more direct.

I removed the recursion-limit change because it is already handled in #802. I also tightened the tests by adding assertions to verify that the preserved entries are indeed n1 and n2.