ansible-collections / community.routeros

Ansible modules for managing MikroTik RouterOS instances.
https://galaxy.ansible.com/ui/repo/published/community/routeros/
GNU General Public License v3.0
95 stars 44 forks source link

Add '/queue simple' path #260

Closed samburney closed 5 months ago

samburney commented 7 months ago
SUMMARY

Support API path '/queue simple'

ISSUE TYPE
COMPONENT NAME
github-actions[bot] commented 7 months ago

Docs Build 📝

This PR is closed and any previously published docsite has been unpublished.

codecov[bot] commented 7 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 82.99%. Comparing base (542a362) to head (c282423). Report is 13 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #260 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 82.97% 82.99% +0.02% ========================================== Files 32 32 Lines 4046 4051 +5 Branches 871 873 +2 ========================================== + Hits 3357 3362 +5 Misses 506 506 Partials 183 183 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ansible-collections/community.routeros/pull/260/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ansible-collections) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [integration](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ansible-collections/community.routeros/pull/260/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ansible-collections) | `66.86% <ø> (ø)` | | | [sanity](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ansible-collections/community.routeros/pull/260/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ansible-collections) | `22.08% <33.33%> (-0.03%)` | :arrow_down: | | [units](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ansible-collections/community.routeros/pull/260/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ansible-collections) | `82.93% <100.00%> (+0.02%)` | :arrow_up: | 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=ansible-collections#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.

samburney commented 5 months ago

@derdeagle, I agree with your opinion on this, the default should match the api_info output.

I've updated the defaults as suggested and made a couple of other changes as well.

Given the time delay between my first commit and now I also did a git rebase, which has introduced a number of commits into this pull request. I'm not familiar enough with github (Or git in general) to understand whether this is normal, or how to fix it if it isn't; so my apologies for the mess.

I have a number of similar changes to submit, but I'll wait until this one is successful first.

Thanks.

felixfontein commented 5 months ago

Given the time delay between my first commit and now I also did a git rebase, which has introduced a number of commits into this pull request. I'm not familiar enough with github (Or git in general) to understand whether this is normal, or how to fix it if it isn't; so my apologies for the mess.

This is definitely not normal, but you're not the first who managed this (I've seen this both on GitHub in various repos and in our company's GitLab instance). I've never figured out how anyone managed to do this though :) You probably have to try to rebase them away.

If you want I can also try that and then force-push to your branch. (You'll then have to pay a bit of care when pulling so you don't end up with an even more messed up branch. Potentially it's easier to delete the local branch and check out the branch from your remote afterwards if the result looks suspicious.)

samburney commented 5 months ago

@felixfontein I ended up with this result by typing 'git rebase main' in my local branch, and then doing a push/pull. Happy with any assistance in cleaning it up!

samburney commented 5 months ago

This is definitely not normal, but you're not the first who managed this (I've seen this both on GitHub in various repos and in our company's GitLab instance). I've never figured out how anyone managed to do this though :) You probably have to try to rebase them away.

I have created sane branch - I created a new branch, rebased and then cherry-picked my subsequent commit above: https://github.com/samburney/community.routeros/tree/add_simple_queues_2

Is the fix to do that on my original branch and force-push? I'm hesitant to do that without a bit of guidance to be honest!

Thanks.

felixfontein commented 5 months ago

@felixfontein I ended up with this result by typing 'git rebase main' in my local branch, and then doing a push/pull. Happy with any assistance in cleaning it up!

Did you first update your local main branch before doing that? And after doing the rebase, did you do a force push afterwards?

samburney commented 5 months ago

@felixfontein I ended up with this result by typing 'git rebase main' in my local branch, and then doing a push/pull. Happy with any assistance in cleaning it up!

Did you first update your local main branch before doing that? And after doing the rebase, did you do a force push afterwards?

Welp, I made it worse :|

I'm just going to close this pull request and create a new one.

samburney commented 5 months ago

Recreated as #269.