Closed Nerzal closed 2 years ago
Looks like my VSCode auto applied gofmt -w -s Is that an issue? Lots of code have been reformated.
But when running make fmt nothing changes anymore :thinking:
We need to go to new major version because we already have lots of version tags that apply to the old namespace.
We need to go to new major version because we already have lots of version tags that apply to the old namespace.
So you mean something like v4? We should currently be on v2, so i thought v3 would fit :D
V3 is fine since the current code maxes or at 2.x
Would it be possible to approve the usage of the Github pipelines, so i can fix possible errors inside the pipelines? :)
Approved runs, but all CI can also be run locally.
Merging #595 (30c85cc) into dev-v3 (7aa7af5) will increase coverage by
0.06%
. The diff coverage isn/a
.:exclamation: Current head 30c85cc differs from pull request most recent head 5e31c4b. Consider uploading reports for the commit 5e31c4b to get more accurate results
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev-v3 #595 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.58% 88.64% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 61 61
Lines 3328 3328
==========================================
+ Hits 2948 2950 +2
+ Misses 252 251 -1
+ Partials 128 127 -1
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
baggage_setter.go | 100.00% <ø> (ø) |
|
config/config.go | 95.33% <ø> (ø) |
|
config/config_env.go | 96.77% <ø> (ø) |
|
config/options.go | 100.00% <ø> (ø) |
|
crossdock/client/client.go | 72.72% <ø> (ø) |
|
crossdock/client/trace.go | 66.66% <ø> (ø) |
|
crossdock/endtoend/handler.go | 85.36% <ø> (ø) |
|
crossdock/server/server.go | 64.70% <ø> (ø) |
|
crossdock/server/trace.go | 80.48% <ø> (ø) |
|
internal/baggage/remote/options.go | 71.42% <ø> (ø) |
|
... and 28 more |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 7aa7af5...5e31c4b. Read the comment docs.
Well tbh i'm not sure what to do about the 2 CodeQL failures.
I think we can ignore codeql errors, it seems to rain before the or as well, need to look at it separately
@Nerzal we just discussed this change on the Jaeger call and decided that it would be a good idea to combine the major version / namespace change with the clean-up items that have accumulated in the code base and require breaking changes.
I've created a new branch dev-v3
, could you please repoint the PR to that branch? We'll do the clean-ups there and then merge the whole thing to master.
$ grep -rn 'TODO (breaking change)' .
./sampler_v2.go:55:// TODO (breaking change) remove this in the next major release
./utils/rate_limiter.go:24:// TODO (breaking change) remove this interface in favor of public struct below
./utils/rate_limiter.go:44:// TODO (breaking change) rename to RateLimiter once the interface is removed
./sampler_remote.go:92:// TODO (breaking change) remove when Sampler V1 is removed
./tracer.go:78:// TODO (breaking change) return *Tracer only, without closer.
./span.go:72:// TODO (breaking change) deprecate in the next major release, use opentracing.Tag instead.
./span.go:79:// TODO (breaking change) deprecate in the next major release, use opentracing.Tag instead.
./sampler.go:46: // TODO (breaking change) remove this function. See PerOperationSampler.Equals for explanation.
./sampler.go:392:// TODO (breaking change) remove when upgrading everything to SamplerV2
./sampler.go:482:// TODO (breaking change) remove this in the future
cc @joe-elliott
Sure, will do. Give me some minutes
Heyho, don't wanna stress you out, but is there anything i can do to speed up the process here? :)
Which problem is this PR solving?
Resolves #382
Short description of the changes
Started new clean PR (closed #583)
Make file passes locally
Tests pass locally: