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

Support Updating Single Package, Refactoring update_upstream_versions #2139

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Feb 13, 2024

Conversation

ytausch
Copy link
Contributor

@ytausch ytausch commented Feb 9, 2024

This part of #2131 adds the functionality of updating one single package and refactors the update_upstream_versions.py code. It also adds helpful debug output and tests the entire refactored code.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 9, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (9dd5b94) 69.45% compared to head (8cc0c4a) 73.21%.

Files Patch % Lines
tests/test_cli.py 94.87% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2139      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   69.45%   73.21%   +3.76%     
==========================================
  Files          96       96              
  Lines        8861     9265     +404     
==========================================
+ Hits         6154     6783     +629     
+ Misses       2707     2482     -225     

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

@ytausch ytausch marked this pull request as draft February 9, 2024 09:20
@ytausch ytausch marked this pull request as ready for review February 9, 2024 19:30
@ytausch
Copy link
Contributor Author

ytausch commented Feb 12, 2024

@xhochy Besides adding the single package CLI option, this PR adds no functionality and is 95% refactoring. Can you have a look on this?


# avoid this one since it runs too long and hangs the bot
if name == "ca-policy-lcg":
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We might want to create a general opt-out mechanism in a follow up PR

0xbe7a

This comment was marked as outdated.

Copy link

@0xbe7a 0xbe7a left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@xhochy
Copy link
Member

xhochy commented Feb 13, 2024

Did you run mypy locally on these changes?

Copy link
Member

@xhochy xhochy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks good, but there are some typing related changes where I would like to have at least a written comment that you ran mypy locally. Medium-term, it should also be added to the CI if we make more use of types.

conda_forge_tick/update_upstream_versions.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ytausch
Copy link
Contributor Author

ytausch commented Feb 13, 2024

@xhochy Thanks for pointing out, there were actually some minor type issues. They are now fixed.

Copy link
Contributor

@beckermr beckermr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

one question but otherwise LGTM!

sorry for the delay here!

conda_forge_tick/update_upstream_versions.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@beckermr beckermr merged commit e9ad40f into regro:master Feb 13, 2024
5 checks passed
@beckermr
Copy link
Contributor

We'll need to baby sit the bot a bit today to make sure nothing breaks.

@ytausch ytausch deleted the update_one_package branch February 13, 2024 17:29
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.

4 participants