Closed int3 closed 1 year ago
Merging #210 (30a2245) into main (a3287a9) will increase coverage by
0.16%
. The diff coverage is92.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #210 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 58.24% 58.41% +0.16%
==========================================
Files 30 30
Lines 3504 3523 +19
Branches 784 786 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 2041 2058 +17
Misses 1175 1175
- Partials 288 290 +2
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
tests/exec_unit_tests.rs | 88.99% <88.23%> (-0.14%) |
:arrow_down: |
src/find/matchers/exec.rs | 87.17% <100.00%> (+0.69%) |
:arrow_up: |
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
The failing jobs don't seem to be related to my changes
Did I bork the test runner somehow? Perhaps I shouldn't have force-pushed?
I wonder if this isn't an issue with out CI.
i am surprised that it didn't fix any GNU or BFS tests. Could you please have a look? thanks
So I can confirm that locally it fixes the common/exec_substring
test. Why doesn't that show up on CI? I think it's because the action downloads the most recent bfs-result.json
from a run on the main
branch: https://github.com/uutils/findutils/actions/runs/4257476104/workflow#L119-L127
But if you look at the runs on the main
branch: https://github.com/uutils/findutils/actions?query=branch%3Amain
you'll see it includes this PR itself since the branch is int3:main
. So somehow we need to tell action-download-artifact
to only look at our main branch, not other branches that might be called main
.
Would you like me to make a new PR with a different branch name?
Reopened with a different branch here: https://github.com/uutils/findutils/pull/213
Given
GNU find will replace
{}
by the filename. This commit matches that behavior.Note that this is not required by the POSIX spec.
The GNU testsuite doesn't cover this case, so I've added a test in this repo.
I'm new to Rust, so please be gentle (: