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

Some refactorings on library resolution code #1766

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Aug 25, 2023

Conversation

cmaglie
Copy link
Member

@cmaglie cmaglie commented Jun 15, 2022

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

  • The PR has no duplicates (please search among the Pull Requests
    before creating one)
  • The PR follows
    our contributing guidelines
  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
  • UPGRADING.md has been updated with a migration guide (for breaking changes)

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Just some equivalent code change to simplify and make the code more readable.

What is the current/new behavior?
no changes in behavior

Does this PR introduce a breaking change, and is titled accordingly?
No

@cmaglie cmaglie self-assigned this Jun 15, 2022
@cmaglie cmaglie marked this pull request as ready for review June 15, 2022 12:07
@cmaglie cmaglie requested a review from a team June 15, 2022 12:07
@per1234 per1234 added type: enhancement Proposed improvement topic: code Related to content of the project itself labels Jun 15, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@per1234 per1234 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are several breaking changes to the exported Go package API. Are those still supposed to be documented for the legacy packages?

@cmaglie
Copy link
Member Author

cmaglie commented Jul 4, 2022

The legacy package is not intended for external inclusion. I'll prepare a PR to move the legacy package inside internal/legacy so we could make this distinction clear.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 12, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 77.27% and project coverage change: -0.06 ⚠️

Comparison is base (8cd7297) 62.86% compared to head (22fd8e2) 62.80%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1766      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.86%   62.80%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         218      217       -1     
  Lines       19462    19454       -8     
==========================================
- Hits        12235    12219      -16     
- Misses       6145     6150       +5     
- Partials     1082     1085       +3     
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 62.80% <77.27%> (-0.06%) ⬇️

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

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
legacy/builder/container_find_includes.go 71.62% <70.73%> (-0.41%) ⬇️
legacy/builder/types/types.go 85.71% <88.00%> (+5.71%) ⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

cmaglie added 8 commits June 8, 2023 13:29
There was no need to have it encapsulated in a Command
Removed dependency from types.Context
Instead of skipping include detection later, avoid to add the sources in
the queue right from the beginning.
Also remove the reference to the original Library object because it's no
more needed.
Copy link
Contributor

@alessio-perugini alessio-perugini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@cmaglie cmaglie merged commit 4bf18d6 into arduino:master Aug 25, 2023
@cmaglie cmaglie deleted the libs_refactor branch August 25, 2023 06:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
topic: code Related to content of the project itself type: enhancement Proposed improvement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants