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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[Tidy-First] Refactor safe run hooks #10944

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[Tidy-First] Refactor safe run hooks #10944

wants to merge 6 commits into from
+86 −73

Conversation

QMalcolm
Copy link
Contributor

Resolves #10938

Problem

safe_run_hooks was a bit hard to read. This tidies it up a bit without making any logical changes

Solution

Tidy it without making any logical changes

Checklist

  • I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me.
  • I have run this code in development, and it appears to resolve the stated issue.
  • This PR includes tests, or tests are not required or relevant for this PR.
  • This PR has no interface changes (e.g., macros, CLI, logs, JSON artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc.) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX.
  • This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions.

@QMalcolm
Remove failed tracking in safe_run_hooks as it's duplicative of `…
c63dd9d 
…status`
@QMalcolm
Delay calculation of failures in safe_run_hooks to simplify code
43945d6 
If it isn't apparent, I'm trying to reduce the need for tracking variables
to make it easier extract the execution code to a separate private function
to make it easier to see what is happening.
@QMalcolm
Lint safe_run_hooks function signature
de43f59
@QMalcolm
Refactor safe_run_hooks so that there is only one return statement
43d1720
@QMalcolm
Split out actual execution of hook into private function to simplify …
9731eaa 
…`safe_run_hooks`
@QMalcolm QMalcolm added the Skip Changelog Skips GHA to check for changelog file label Oct 30, 2024
@QMalcolm QMalcolm requested a review from a team as a code owner October 30, 2024 16:10
@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla:yes label Oct 30, 2024
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 30, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.14%. Comparing base (dd77210) to head (6358aff).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10944      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.19%   89.14%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         183      183              
  Lines       23496    23494       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        20958    20943      -15     
- Misses       2538     2551      +13
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 86.45% <100.00%> (-0.13%) ⬇️
unit 62.09% <2.85%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

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

Components Coverage Δ
Unit Tests 62.09% <2.85%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
Integration Tests 86.45% <100.00%> (-0.13%) ⬇️

@QMalcolm QMalcolm added the tidy_first "Tidy First" incremental cleanup changes label Oct 30, 2024
@QMalcolm
Fix indentation of _safe_run_hook
6358aff 
In 9731eaa when splitting out the hook execution logic I screwed up
the indentation of most of the logic 🙈 This fixes that
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
cla:yes Skip Changelog Skips GHA to check for changelog file tidy_first "Tidy First" incremental cleanup changes
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Tidy First] Refactor safe_run_hooks
1 participant
@QMalcolm