Master

[Emasoft]

Description

Related Issue

Fixes #(issue number)

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation update
• Code refactoring
• Performance improvement
• Test coverage improvement

Changes Made

• Change 1
• Change 2
• Change 3

Testing

Test Configuration

• Python version:
• OS:

Test Results

• All existing tests pass
• New tests added for new functionality
• Manual testing performed

Test commands run:

# Example:
uv run pytest

Screenshots / Examples

Before:

<!-- Example output before changes -->

After:

<!-- Example output after changes -->

Checklist

• My code follows the project's code style (passes ruff check and ruff format)
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings or errors
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published

Breaking Changes

Impact:

Migration Guide:

Additional Notes

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 9.06%. Comparing base (044cc6d) to head (a8f7e39).

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main      #4   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   9.06%   9.06%           
=====================================
  Files          1       1           
  Lines       4161    4161           
  Branches    1165    1165           
=====================================
  Hits         377     377           
  Misses      3783    3783           
  Partials       1       1           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[claude]

Pull Request Review - PR #4

Summary

This PR attempts to merge the master branch into main. However, there are several critical issues that need to be addressed before this can be merged.

---

🚨 Critical Issues

1. Incomplete PR Description

• ❌ The PR template has not been filled out
• ❌ No description of what changes are being merged
• ❌ No related issue referenced
• ❌ Type of change not specified
• ❌ All checklist items are unchecked

Required Action: Fill out the PR template completely, explaining:

• What changes are in the master branch that aren't in main
• Why these branches diverged
• What the purpose of this merge is

2. Zero Changes Detected

The PR shows 0 additions and 0 deletions, which suggests:

• The branches may already be in sync
• This could be a no-op merge
• There might be a technical issue with the PR creation

Required Action:

• Verify that master and main branches actually differ
• If they're already in sync, close this PR as unnecessary
• If there are real changes, investigate why they're not showing up

3. Branch Strategy Concerns

According to the repository's CONTRIBUTING.md, the main development branch is main. Having both master and main branches can cause confusion:

• Which branch should contributors target?
• Are there duplicate workflows?
• Is this a one-time sync or ongoing divergence?

Recommendation:

• If master is legacy, consider deprecating it after this merge
• Update repository settings to make the default branch clear
• Document the branch strategy in CONTRIBUTING.md

---

📋 PR Checklist Review

According to PR-CHECKLIST.md and CONTRIBUTING.md, the following must be completed:

Pre-PR Requirements

• Run ruff format and ruff check --fix
• Run trufflehog git file://. --since-commit origin/main --branch HEAD --results=verified,unknown
• Verify lines ≤ 88 chars (E501 enforced)
• Pre-commit hooks installed and passing

Code Quality

• Code follows project style (Ruff)
• Type checking passes (MyPy)
• All tests pass (uv run pytest)
• No new warnings or errors

Documentation

• Documentation updated if needed
• CHANGELOG.md updated for notable changes
• Comments added for complex code

Security

• No hardcoded secrets or credentials
• No sensitive information in commit messages
• TruffleHog scan passes
• .gitignore properly configured

---

🔍 Additional Observations

Positive aspects:

• The repository has comprehensive contribution guidelines
• Security scanning with TruffleHog is configured
• Pre-commit hooks are set up

Questions to address:

1. What is the relationship between master and main branches?
2. Are there actual code changes that need review?
3. Has this been tested locally?
4. Do all CI/CD checks pass?

---

📝 Recommendations

1. Close this PR and create a new one with:

   • Proper description of changes
   • All checklist items completed
   • Clear explanation of why the merge is needed

2. Alternative: If no changes are needed, close this PR and:

   • Archive or delete the master branch if it's redundant
   • Update documentation to clarify branch strategy

3. If real changes exist:

   • List all commits being merged
   • Explain each significant change
   • Ensure all tests pass
   • Get appropriate code review

---

✅ Next Steps

Before this PR can be approved:

1. Fill out the entire PR template
2. Verify actual changes exist and are necessary
3. Run all required checks (ruff, mypy, pytest, trufflehog)
4. Ensure CI/CD pipeline passes
5. Update CHANGELOG.md if applicable
6. Explain the branch strategy going forward

---

Review Status: ❌ Request Changes

Please address the critical issues above and request re-review when ready.

---

Review conducted following the project's CONTRIBUTING.md and PR-CHECKLIST.md guidelines.

[Emasoft]

Closing outdated PR. Branch has been synced with main directly.

[claude]

Pull Request Review - PR #4: Master

Overview

This PR adds 5,840+ files including the entire W3C SVG 1.1 Test Suite and documentation.

---

Critical Issues

1. Repository Bloat (5,840+ Files)

• Entire W3C SVG 1.1 Test Suite (14.6MB tarball + extracted)
• Hundreds of PNG images, fonts, binaries
• Estimated 50-100MB+ addition

Recommendation: Remove test suite, use Git LFS or external hosting

2. Incomplete PR Description

• Template unfilled
• No description, issue, or type specified
• All checklist items unchecked

3. Binary Files Without LFS

Hundreds of binaries without Git LFS configuration

4. Backup Files Committed

• FBF.SVG/FBF_PROS_AND_CONS.md.bak
• FBF.SVG/CONTRIBUTING.md.old

---

Positive Aspects

• Excellent documentation
• Good CI/CD infrastructure
• Security scanning configured

---

Must Remove Before Merge

1. FBF.SVG/SVG 1.1 W3C Test Suit/ (entire directory)
2. W3C_SVG_11_TestSuite.tar.gz (14.6MB)
3. All .bak and .old files

---

Final Verdict: REQUEST CHANGES

Blocking Issues:

1. Repository bloat (5000+ files)
2. Incomplete PR description
3. Backup files committed
4. No security scan results
5. No test results
6. Binaries without LFS

Required Actions:

• Remove W3C Test Suite
• Remove backup files
• Fill PR template
• Run security scans
• Provide test results

Alternative: Close and create focused PRs for docs, CI/CD, and tooling separately.

---

Questions

1. What is this merge's purpose?
2. Why include entire test suite?
3. Any breaking changes?
4. What testing was done?

---

Score: 2/5 - Major issues must be resolved

Review per CONTRIBUTING.md and PR-CHECKLIST.md