codecov-commenter
commented
1 year ago Codecov Report
Base: 4.87% // Head: 4.86% // Decreases project coverage by -0.02% :warning:
Coverage data is based on head (
6b0ae1f) compared to base (0eeef5d). Patch coverage: 0.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #170 +/- ## ========================================= - Coverage 4.87% 4.86% -0.02% ========================================= Files 15 15 Lines 1723 1727 +4 ========================================= Hits 84 84 - Misses 1634 1638 +4 Partials 5 5 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/application-research/autoretrieve/pull/170?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=application-research) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [bitswap/provider.go](https://codecov.io/gh/application-research/autoretrieve/pull/170?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=application-research#diff-Yml0c3dhcC9wcm92aWRlci5nbw==) | `0.00% <0.00%> (ø)` | | 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.
Maybe an alternative to just doing #169. I wonder if not playing nicely with clients will be impacting what we're receiving?
Sending immediate dont_haves rather than relying on the AwaitGet call to return for cases where the indexer says there might help since they are the most common responses.
I'm doing something like this in #167 already.