codacy-production[bot]
commented
4 months ago Coverage summary from Codacy
See diff coverage on Codacy
| Coverage variation | Diff coverage |
|---|---|
| Report missing for 4ac77f4575d4d7e819a56debadeebf3fb353b6c7[^1] | :white_check_mark: 94.29% |
Coverage variation details
| | Coverable lines | Covered lines | Coverage | | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | | Common ancestor commit (4ac77f4575d4d7e819a56debadeebf3fb353b6c7) | Report Missing | Report Missing | Report Missing | | | Head commit (343db7b3f1580c256433c42c215d781a836e04ab) | 51673 | 43599 | 84.37% | **Coverage variation** is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: `Diff coverage details
| | Coverable lines | Covered lines | Diff coverage | | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | | Pull request (#3614) | 70 | 66 | **94.29%** | **Diff coverage** is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: `See your quality gate settings Change summary preferences
Codacy will stop sending the deprecated coverage status from June 5th, 2024. Learn more [^1]: Codacy didn't receive coverage data for the commit, or there was an error processing the received data. Check your integration for errors and validate that your coverage setup is correct.
Add a command similar to the existing "Show divergence from upstream", but for the base branch instead. Useful to see what you would rebase onto if you were to rebase onto the base branch now.
It could be considered somewhat questionable that we display both the Remote and Local sections of the log here; the Local section isn't really interesting because it's always identical to what you see in the Commits view. I chose to still show it since it makes the divergence view look more familiar, and I think overall it makes it clearer what you're looking at.
This is sitting on top of #3613 and uses some of the code that was added there.
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
[x] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run
go generate ./...)[x] Code has been formatted (see here)
[x] Tests have been added/updated (see here for the integration test guide)
[x] Text is internationalised (see here)
[x] Docs have been updated if necessary
[x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc