search

regro / cf-scripts

Flagship repo for cf-regro-autotick-bot
Other
46 stars 70 forks source link

Readd Git backend, again #2795

Open ytausch opened 2 weeks ago

ytausch commented 2 weeks ago

This should resolve the errors we observed in https://github.com/regro/cf-scripts/actions/runs/9465733947/job/26075864527

We erroneously returned the directory name of the feedstock and not the full feedstock path in get_repo.

codecov[bot] commented 2 weeks ago

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.52247% with 39 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 76.77%. Comparing base (4da997c) to head (51c6661).

:exclamation: Current head 51c6661 differs from pull request most recent head 411af0d

Please upload reports for the commit 411af0d to get more accurate results.

Files Patch % Lines
conda_forge_tick/git_utils.py 86.66% 30 Missing :warning:
conda_forge_tick/auto_tick.py 0.00% 5 Missing :warning:
conda_forge_tick/update_prs.py 0.00% 2 Missing :warning:
conda_forge_tick/executors.py 94.44% 1 Missing :warning:
tests/test_git_utils.py 99.77% 1 Missing :warning:
Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #2795 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 74.99% 76.77% +1.78% ========================================== Files 109 109 Lines 11188 11764 +576 ========================================== + Hits 8390 9032 +642 + Misses 2798 2732 -66 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

beckermr commented 2 weeks ago

Is there a better way to test this PR before we merge again?

ytausch commented 2 weeks ago

Problem is, there are no real tests for the auto_tick module - and I think it's currently not worth building them because I want to change some more git-related things about it. Running locally is also not really possible currently. So I guess we should just try again - feel free to review the code again if you think that makes sense.

beckermr commented 2 weeks ago

OK. I will merge this PR when I have a chance to baby sit the bot and see what happens.

ytausch commented 1 week ago

Just as a note: I would appreciate if we could use "rebase" instead of "merge" to keep this PR up-to-date with the base branch for now. I have three branches that all depend on this, and rebasing helps me to keep a clean history. I am more than happy to do this myself to avoid conflicts.