search

esgf2-us / metagrid

ESGF Search UI
https://metagrid.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
MIT License
17 stars 4 forks source link

Support custom Solr port #607

Closed sashakames closed 5 months ago

sashakames commented 6 months ago

Currently, the Solr port is hardcoded to 80. This change supports custom ports.
Note this will be difficult to test at LLNL, we request support from partner sites that benefit from the change

codecov[bot] commented 5 months ago

Codecov Report

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

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (b5dced7) to head (5f7c44b).

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## v1.1.0 #607 +/- ## =========================================== + Coverage 98.54% 100.00% +1.45% =========================================== Files 76 30 -46 Lines 2752 910 -1842 Branches 416 0 -416 =========================================== - Hits 2712 910 -1802 + Misses 40 0 -40 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/esgf2-us/metagrid/pull/607/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=esgf2-us) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [backend](https://app.codecov.io/gh/esgf2-us/metagrid/pull/607/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=esgf2-us) | `100.00% <ø> (ø)` | | | [frontend](https://app.codecov.io/gh/esgf2-us/metagrid/pull/607/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=esgf2-us) | `?` | | 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=esgf2-us#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.

sashakames commented 5 months ago

the branch was updated to v1.1.0 via merge. There are no frontend changes, so something is suspicious that the frontend CI fails, seems like another intermittent issue. Anyway I think we are ready for a review and should merge if no concerns.