codecov-commenter
commented
8 months ago Codecov Report
Attention: 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Comparison is base (
68180d6) 91.60% compared to head (a3bab0f) 91.54%.
| Files | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| ggshield/core/scan/scannable.py | 80.95% | 4 Missing :warning: |
| ggshield/verticals/secret/secret_scanner.py | 85.71% | 1 Missing :warning: |
:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #823 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 91.60% 91.54% -0.06% ========================================== Files 168 168 Lines 6929 6941 +12 ========================================== + Hits 6347 6354 +7 - Misses 582 587 +5 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/GitGuardian/ggshield/pull/823/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=GitGuardian) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/GitGuardian/ggshield/pull/823/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=GitGuardian) | `91.54% <86.11%> (-0.06%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=GitGuardian#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Aims at fixing the issue with scanning large documents where chunks can end up being larger than the maximum server payload, first reported in #555.
Depends on a change to py-gitguardian, see PR here, to pass the server payload to the GGClient.
To facilitate the computation of chunk size an utf8_encoded_size property was added and calls a new method _read_content. Some of the code is a bit clunky with
if self.content is Nonestatement even tough we just called a read method to make sure it wouldn't be None, but this way pyright doesn't complain.I left a constant margin in the chunk size to encode the metadata and tested it with a scan of 10 000 files of 1Kb but it might be better to have it adapt depending on the number of files in the chunk ?