fix: parameter filtering takes branch into account #913
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Changes have been made to critical files, which contain lines commonly executed in production. Learn more ✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #913 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 96.25% 96.32% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 823 823
Lines 18999 19644 +645
==========================================
+ Hits 18288 18922 +634
- Misses 711 722 +11
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
| return rows[left:] | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def get_relevant_totals( |
| totals = get_relevant_totals(repoid, branch, since) | ||
|
|
||
| flaky_test_ids = set([flake.test_id for flake in flakes]) | ||
| flaky_test_ids = ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
being able to have a generalized pattern for all these makes it so much easier to read
utils/test_results.py
Outdated
| Q(repository_id=repoid) | ||
| & (Q(end_date__date__isnull=True) | Q(end_date__date__gt=since)) | ||
| ) | ||
| totals = get_relevant_totals(repoid, branch, since) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reading it this way now, we could also bump totals up to line 372 and use it for each case now right?
Vs. having it be the "starting line" in each of our case statements below
ajay-sentry
left a comment
ajay-sentry
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
couple comments, nothing blocking
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
No description provided.