-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: extend configuration for comment.required_changes
#259
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #259 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.06% 89.48% -0.58%
==========================================
Files 339 324 -15
Lines 10696 10222 -474
Branches 1924 1851 -73
==========================================
- Hits 9633 9147 -486
- Misses 1004 1005 +1
- Partials 59 70 +11
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
As you can see, this is a big change. It implements the changes from codecov/shared#259 into the worker. It does make the require changes condition way more complex. I also took the time to audit the unit tests, but I think they are valid now. Perhaps I should add more integration tests just in case...
I'll hold off merging this until codecov/worker#520 is approved. |
We are extending the configuration for required_changes. ticket: codecov/engineering-team#1966 I might have overengineered the different conditions, but being able to combine in both AND and OR operations is somewhat tricky. In the end it's a satisfaction problem in that all the elements in the conditions list need to be satisfied for the comment to occur, and the elements themselves express and OR grouping.
Use a proper parsing lib instead of ad-hoc code to parse the required_changes string options. Interface remains unchanged.
2aed815
to
0704331
Compare
As you can see, this is a big change. It implements the changes from codecov/shared#259 into the worker. It does make the require changes condition way more complex. I also took the time to audit the unit tests, but I think they are valid now. Perhaps I should add more integration tests just in case...
We are extending the configuration for required_changes.
ticket: codecov/engineering-team#1966
I might have overengineered the different conditions, but being able to combine in both AND and OR
operations is somewhat tricky. In the end it's a satisfaction problem in that all the elements in the
conditions list need to be satisfied for the comment to occur, and the elements themselves express
and OR grouping.