Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 27, 2024

Conversation

giovanni-guidini
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@giovanni-guidini giovanni-guidini requested a review from a team June 21, 2024 09:19
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 25, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.48%. Comparing base (e938971) to head (2aed815).

Current head 2aed815 differs from pull request most recent head 0704331

Please upload reports for the commit 0704331 to get more accurate results.

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     
Flag Coverage Δ
shared-docker-uploader ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

giovanni-guidini added a commit to codecov/worker that referenced this pull request Jun 25, 2024
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...
@giovanni-guidini
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll hold off merging this until codecov/worker#520 is approved.
These changes are too significant for the shared code to not be paired up with the worker code in tandem

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.
giovanni-guidini added a commit to codecov/worker that referenced this pull request Jun 26, 2024
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...
@giovanni-guidini giovanni-guidini added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 27, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 734a972 Jun 27, 2024
6 checks passed
@giovanni-guidini giovanni-guidini deleted the gio/negative-changes branch June 27, 2024 15:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants