Skip to content

Conversation

@jackschofield23
Copy link
Contributor

Signed-off-by: Jack Schofield jack.schofield@answerdigital.com

Signed-off-by: Jack Schofield <jack.schofield@answerdigital.com>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 24, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #7 (0aff8cb) into release/0.1.0 (fcb7fa7) will decrease coverage by 1.07894%.
The diff coverage is 0.00000%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@                   Coverage Diff                   @@
##           release/0.1.0          #7         +/-   ##
=======================================================
- Coverage       33.55482%   32.47588%   -1.07895%     
=======================================================
  Files                  7           7                 
  Lines                301         311         +10     
  Branches              11          17          +6     
=======================================================
  Hits                 101         101                 
- Misses               200         210         +10     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 32.47588% <0.00000%> (-1.07895%) ⬇️

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

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/Storage/MinIo/MinIoStorageService.cs 0.00000% <0.00000%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fcb7fa7...0aff8cb. Read the comment docs.

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.    Quality Gate failed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

0.0% 0.0% Coverage
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

Copy link
Contributor

@lillie-dae lillie-dae left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me 😎

Copy link

@joshliberty joshliberty left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jackschofield23 why does the verify objects exist function need to receive a dictionary instead of only the path?

@jackschofield23
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jackschofield23 why does the verify objects exist function need to receive a dictionary instead of only the path?

I figured it was just easier to take the existing dictionary and filter out any non existent ones

@jackschofield23 jackschofield23 merged commit 66f4671 into release/0.1.0 May 25, 2022
@jackschofield23 jackschofield23 deleted the jschofield/update-artifact-verification branch May 25, 2022 09:25
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.

5 participants