Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

remove deprecated create_key and list_keys verbs #302

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 8, 2024

Conversation

mikaelarguedas
Copy link
Member

Deprecated since 2020

@mikaelarguedas mikaelarguedas force-pushed the remove_deprecated_verb branch from 3fa2ec2 to 02bc4f1 Compare May 8, 2024 14:17
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 8, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.35%. Comparing base (554d1c7) to head (02bc4f1).

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           rolling     #302      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    77.08%   77.35%   +0.27%     
===========================================
  Files           25       25              
  Lines          637      627      -10     
  Branches        66       66              
===========================================
- Hits           491      485       -6     
+ Misses         125      121       -4     
  Partials        21       21              
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 77.35% <ø> (+0.27%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@mikaelarguedas mikaelarguedas merged commit 07608ab into rolling May 8, 2024
7 checks passed
@mikaelarguedas mikaelarguedas deleted the remove_deprecated_verb branch May 8, 2024 14:54
@clalancette
Copy link
Contributor

These kinds of changes need to go through a CI round in order to get merged into Rolling, as per our Contributor guidelines.

Please make sure to run CI on these changes, and for any future PRs.

@mikaelarguedas
Copy link
Member Author

Oh my bad I assumed that the approval from @ahcorde was enough (as there is no instance of these verbs in the entire codebase).

will do in the future 👍

We agree that that doesnt apply to PRs for local CI purposes like my ongoing github actions and codecov PRs?

@clalancette
Copy link
Contributor

We agree that that doesnt apply to PRs for local CI purposes like my ongoing github actions and codecov PRs?

Yeah, those are totally fine; they don't affect the code directly.

@mikaelarguedas
Copy link
Member Author

Yeah, those are totally fine; they don't affect the code directly.

Neither does removing verbs that were never used anywhere in the ros2.repos file 🤔

@clalancette
Copy link
Contributor

Neither does removing verbs that were never used anywhere in the ros2.repos file 🤔

Nevertheless, it is our development practice to always run CI on code changes. There have been very many times when a change that should not have changed anything broke on Windows.

@mikaelarguedas
Copy link
Member Author

ok 👍

Which jobs should be ran in debug mode ?

I dont see it in the developper workflow and from my recollection that's where most of my python change headaches came from (Python + Debug + Windows)

@mikaelarguedas
Copy link
Member Author

(not trying to be sassy, just wanting to make sure I follow the right workflow for #300 and future ones)

@clalancette
Copy link
Contributor

Which jobs should be ran in debug mode ?

Yeah, it's a good question. The honest answer is that we don't (typically) run Windows Debug as part of normal CI. We usually just wait for the nightlies to run it, and then fixup afterwards.

In any case, it looks like you've figure out how to run it, so that is a nice bonus. Thanks for doing that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants