Closed mbfakourii closed 1 year ago
Patch coverage: 11.11
% and no project coverage change.
Comparison is base (
a682290
) 39.50% compared to head (03ec1fb
) 39.50%.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
dio
package)codecov
timeout. I think I requested too much 😃)dio
in flutter package)Re-running CI to get all tests to pass
It seems that the CI is always failing, and it's not just the coverage upload. Could you take a look?
Yes, Sure
The last error related to the code format is not a problem in my system, but it is a problem in CI!
@Nidal-Bakir Can you also check?
I think the issue is that the linter is part of the dart framework. So if the Dart beta version enforces a new lint rule, the lint check for that framework version will fail. That's why it's only failing for "Dart beta".
It would be good if we had an output in the log of the lint check, is there an option? I've tried output=show
but that just showed all the file contents the linter checks. Alternatively you could use the dart beta version locally to see what the lint error is. Once we know the line rule, we could try to manually set the lint rule in a config file to override it to use the previous behavior. The linter should hopefully support a lint config file.
@mtrezza Why should the dart beta version be checked?
It fails dart format
, which I assume is because the linter changed in that dart version. We currently don't have the beta version jobs as "required" in the CI, so we could also merge regardless of whether it fails. I guess the ideal strategy would be to find out what format change is causing the issue and probably fix it in the PR.
On the other hand, we could also just remove the lint check from the beta versions, if we consider formatting not be crucial for preparing our code for beta releases. Formatting after all can be easily adapted once the beta version becomes stable.
Why removed? Adding beta was debated thoroughly in a previous PR and we deiced to add it. If we now remove it we should find arguments that outweigh the other arguments.
I think we'd need to:
Why removed? Adding beta was debated thoroughly in a previous PR and we deiced to add it. If we now remove it we should find arguments that outweigh the other arguments.
I think we'd need to:
- Find out what exactly the linter is complaining about.
- If we can't fix it, remove linting for beta, instead of removing beta altogether.
- If we can't removing linting for beta, decide whether we should remove beta.
Sorry, I was testing and returned it
Do you think you could run dart format
locally with the dart beta version to find out what the 1 issue is the linter corrects?
Installing the linux-x64 Dart SDK version 3.1.0-163.1.beta from the beta (release) channel.
Do you think you could run
dart format
locally with the dart beta version to find out what the 1 issue is the linter corrects?
I will test
@mtrezza It has problems from version 2.18 to 3. I will roll back to the previous version. I think it is better if there is a problem in the beta!
Is there no way we can slightly refactor the code so it passes both? For example, change the line length to avoid the line break that seems to cause the issue.
Is there no way we can slightly refactor the code so it passes both?
I will check
fixed
Well done! So we can keep the beat versions in the CI; is this ready for merge?
Yes, it is ready to merge
Pull Request
Issue
Closes: #821
Approach
Update package_info_plus to
package_info_plus: ^4.0.2
Tasks