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

fix!: restrict exported names with __all__ #306

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 9, 2024

Conversation

federicobond
Copy link
Member

Refs #214

Note: this is a breaking change. We should do an ecosystem check to make sure most packages are using the correct imports.

@federicobond
Copy link
Member Author

Should AbstractProvider be importable from openfeature.provider so we can phase out openfeature.provider.provider?

@federicobond federicobond force-pushed the fix/restrict-exports branch from 7bc1df2 to da8836d Compare March 28, 2024 00:00
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 28, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.84%. Comparing base (faf02a9) to head (b30a492).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head b30a492 differs from pull request most recent head 5613668. Consider uploading reports for the commit 5613668 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #306      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.10%   94.84%   -2.27%     
==========================================
  Files          27       20       -7     
  Lines        1176      659     -517     
==========================================
- Hits         1142      625     -517     
  Misses         34       34              
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 94.84% <100.00%> (-2.27%) ⬇️

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.

@federicobond federicobond force-pushed the fix/restrict-exports branch from da8836d to b30a492 Compare April 2, 2024 02:57
Copy link
Member

@gruebel gruebel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice work 💪

openfeature/provider/__init__.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@federicobond federicobond force-pushed the fix/restrict-exports branch 2 times, most recently from 940e537 to 9113338 Compare April 5, 2024 01:33
@gruebel
Copy link
Member

gruebel commented Apr 5, 2024

I think exposing AbstractProvider should be done with your other PR #309 then the circular dependency will be gone.

@federicobond federicobond force-pushed the fix/restrict-exports branch from 9113338 to c5b7d05 Compare April 7, 2024 13:01
Signed-off-by: Federico Bond <federicobond@gmail.com>
@federicobond federicobond force-pushed the fix/restrict-exports branch from c5b7d05 to 93de1c7 Compare April 7, 2024 13:06
@federicobond
Copy link
Member Author

Something weird with the Codecov uploader, @toddbaert @beeme1mr do you know what might be going on?

@beeme1mr
Copy link
Member

beeme1mr commented Apr 7, 2024

I think this happens when Codecovs attempts to call the GitHub APIs and are throttled. I just ran one of the failed tests to see if that fixed it. If that doesn't help, I will investigate tomorrow.

@beeme1mr
Copy link
Member

beeme1mr commented Apr 7, 2024

Unfortunately, it looks like a very common issue.
codecov/codecov-action#598

@beeme1mr
Copy link
Member

beeme1mr commented Apr 7, 2024

We should probably only run Codecov once after the python specific tests finish.

@gruebel
Copy link
Member

gruebel commented Apr 8, 2024

Yeah, there is no need to upload the results for each Python version, just one is enough. We can add an if condition to only upload for Python 3.11 as it is the default version for dinner other jobs in the same workflow.

Signed-off-by: gruebel <anton.gruebel@gmail.com>
@gruebel
Copy link
Member

gruebel commented Apr 8, 2024

ok, seems like we are not the only ones with the codecov issue codecov/codecov-action#1359 seems like we need to upgrade to v4 with API token.

@beeme1mr
Copy link
Member

beeme1mr commented Apr 8, 2024

ok, seems like we are not the only ones with the codecov issue codecov/codecov-action#1359 seems like we need to upgrade to v4 with API token.

Unfortunately, that has challenges too. Perhaps should should consider replacing CodeCov or skipping the upload step for now.

@gruebel
Copy link
Member

gruebel commented Apr 9, 2024

@beeme1mr an alternative could be https://coveralls.io/ thoughts?

@federicobond
Copy link
Member Author

I inclined to not rush with the decision and just ignore upload failures in CI temporarily.

Signed-off-by: Michael Beemer <beeme1mr@users.noreply.github.com>
@gruebel gruebel merged commit 34ac91c into open-feature:main Apr 9, 2024
10 checks passed
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