-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 163
Conversation
I forgot to change the tests, don't mind the PR till then. |
64a4253
to
f6d607a
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## trunk #613 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 60.49% 60.43% -0.06%
==========================================
Files 90 90
Lines 6348 6364 +16
==========================================
+ Hits 3840 3846 +6
- Misses 2147 2156 +9
- Partials 361 362 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
FIxed the tests, but code coverage drops, down because I added issue linking. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for taking this on!
Do you think we should consider the link_type
since the API allows that?
According the API docs, the link_type
defines the type of the relation and has 3 options: “relates_to”, “blocks”, “is_blocked_by”. The default is relates_to
.
So here is my suggestion:
We should have a --link-type
flag that can only be used together with --linked-issues
flag to define the type of relation. But the default will be relates_to
ref: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/api/issue_links.html#create-an-issue-link
With the last commit I added the
|
Noted. I think the error message is self-explanatory |
Description
Related Issue
Resolves #351
How Has This Been Tested?
Worked on my testing repo
Screenshots (if appropriate):
Types of changes