Skip to content

refactoring: implement a proper dependency (.d) file parser #2972

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

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

cmaglie
Copy link
Member

@cmaglie cmaglie commented Aug 11, 2025

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

See how to contribute

  • 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)
  • configuration.schema.json updated if new parameters are added.

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Refactor the dep (.d) file parser to handle more cases, and refine the subroutine API.

What is the current behavior?

No changes.

What is the new behavior?

No changes.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change, and is titled accordingly?

No.

Other information

@cmaglie cmaglie self-assigned this Aug 11, 2025
@cmaglie cmaglie added type: enhancement Proposed improvement topic: code Related to content of the project itself labels Aug 11, 2025
@cmaglie cmaglie force-pushed the dep_file_parser branch 2 times, most recently from 04aafb3 to afc0826 Compare August 11, 2025 16:17
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 12, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.11765% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (master@3eecf20). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
internal/arduino/builder/internal/utils/utils.go 73.91% 4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #2972   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   68.31%           
=========================================
  Files             ?      242           
  Lines             ?    22743           
  Branches          ?        0           
=========================================
  Hits              ?    15538           
  Misses            ?     6007           
  Partials          ?     1198           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 68.31% <94.11%> (?)

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

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.

1 participant