Closed WillNilges closed 5 days ago
Had some thoughts on the train. I should include install number as the indicator or success.
Attention: Patch coverage is 90.00000%
with 11 lines
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 94.06%. Comparing base (
5caf101
) to head (dc3995d
). Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing lines | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
...meshapi/management/commands/replay_join_records.py | 84.90% | 8 Missing :warning: |
src/meshapi/util/join_records.py | 94.54% | 3 Missing :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
I would like to specify more rigid types and ensure parity between the join record format in JS and Python. They both read and write from the bucket so it's imperative that they're the same.
Also, I haven't addressed the problem that we're going to be getting a lot of these so the list will grow quite large.
Theoretically the bucket can grow quite large. Maybe one thing I could do is try to improve the way I fetch the failed submissions.
Then again, computers are fast, and the sub-optimal code might not matter until much, much later.
why is codecov mad I literally fixed it it literally has the wrong commit.
Added an issue for the post-launch stuff we need to do: https://github.com/nycmeshnet/meshforms/issues/102
i got rid of the mock, it was causing more problems than it was solving so now this is an integration test. Sue me and die.
I implemented start time.
Not going to do trust me bro yet in the interest of time and energy.
This isn't quite done, but the general idea is there.
It adds a command you can use to replay join records. You'll have to exec into a pod to do it right now, but I can probs expose this via a web interface at some point.
It has a basic mock test, but I need to make it more robust before I trust it.