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

Run draft-next tests on PR submission #98

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

handrews
Copy link
Contributor

@handrews handrews commented Apr 16, 2023

This only make sense if PR #97 is accepted (and even then it might not be what's wanted, which is why it's a separate PR).

This leaves the general tox.ini default in place, but runs the draft-next tests for PR submissions to incorporate their coverage (e.g. for PR #93). We could also enable the optional and format tests, I just didn't have a clear use case for that yet.

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor Author

The tests will fail here because I didn't stack this on #97.

This leaves the general tox.ini default in place, but runs the
draft-next tests for PR submissions to incorporate their coverage.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 21, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: +0.14 🎉

Comparison is base (3ff123b) 92.62% compared to head (00636ed) 92.76%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #98      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.62%   92.76%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files          23       23              
  Lines        2033     2033              
  Branches      428      428              
==========================================
+ Hits         1883     1886       +3     
+ Misses         97       94       -3     
  Partials       53       53              

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor Author

handrews commented Jun 21, 2023

This now ought to pass. Still an open question as to whether this is the ideal behavior or not, but it would allow PR #80 [EDIT: I meant PR #93] to pass the coverage check (although that PR needs rewriting as noted in its move to "draft" status, so it's not an immediate blocker anyway).

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.

None yet

1 participant