[MNT] Update Setup List Test Assertion to Be More Specific

[geetu040]

The test test_setup_list_filter_flow in test_setup_functions.py#L139 has a placeholder assertion assert len(setups) > 0. This was likely added when the test server had no setups, but now it should check for a specific expected count based on real data.

Steps:

1. Run the test against the production server (or check the test server data) to see how many setups are returned for flow ID 5873.
2. Replace the assertion with assert len(setups) == expected_count (e.g., assert len(setups) == 5 if that's the actual number).
3. If the count varies, consider making it assert len(setups) >= expected_minimum with a comment explaining why.
4. Ensure the test still passes and update any related comments.

The test will be more robust and fail appropriately if the setup count changes unexpectedly, preventing false positives.

Source: Mentioned TODO in source code (same line)

[PGijsbers]

1. For now, please keep using the production server for this test as the test server is not guaranteed to have setups (yet)
2. Make the assertion based on a minimum. It is possible that people upload more runs for the flow (and consequently, more setups). It is also possible they delete them, but not so likely. So I would check a lower bound that is lower than what is currently on the production server.

[Varshith-Yadav]

Hi! @geetu040 I'd like to work on this issue and would appreciate being assigned to it.

I noticed that a PR has already been opened for this without prior discussion on the issue. In the future, it would be great if contributors could discuss their approach here first to avoid duplicate efforts and ensure alignment with the project's standards.

Could you please assign me to this issue, or let me know if the existing PR addresses all the requirements? I'm happy to contribute either by improving the existing PR or opening a new one if needed.

Thank you!

[geetu040]

@Varshith-Yadav Yes, the right practice is to always discuss an issue before creating a PR or explicitly comment that you are working on it to avoid multiple people working on a same issue. And doing this will guarantee that your work will be preferred.

Since this is a simple one line fix, we can use #1652. I would suggest to wait for @omkar-334. If we don't hear back in some time, you can work on this.