codecov-commenter
commented
1 year ago Codecov Report
Base: 20.82% // Head: 21.12% // Increases project coverage by +0.29% :tada:
Coverage data is based on head (
c5c780f) compared to base (558e7cd). Patch coverage: 0.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #148 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 20.82% 21.12% +0.29% ========================================== Files 16 16 Lines 2343 2334 -9 ========================================== + Hits 488 493 +5 + Misses 1825 1812 -13 + Partials 30 29 -1 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/application-research/autoretrieve/pull/148?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=application-research) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [filecoin/retriever.go](https://codecov.io/gh/application-research/autoretrieve/pull/148/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=application-research#diff-ZmlsZWNvaW4vcmV0cmlldmVyLmdv) | `35.98% <0.00%> (+0.66%)` | :arrow_up: | | [blocks/manager.go](https://codecov.io/gh/application-research/autoretrieve/pull/148/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=application-research#diff-YmxvY2tzL21hbmFnZXIuZ28=) | `85.00% <0.00%> (+5.00%)` | :arrow_up: | Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=application-research). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=application-research):umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
activeRetrievals.New()performs a "is this CID already involved in an active retrieval?" check and will return anErrRetrievalAlreadyRunningif it is; move the index-filtered metric until after this point to capture this filtering in addition to the per-SP concurrency filtering.I only realised this after watching logs while writing up details on the new funnel metrics .. It does mean we're combing two different filtering into one, but I think that's OK for now. Better to not let this get lost because we lack a clear connection between "indexer candidates I can use" and "got a query response from at least one".