Conversation
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. |
☂️ Python Coverage
Overall Coverage
New FilesNo new covered files... Modified Files
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1591 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.79% 91.85% +0.05%
==========================================
Files 126 126
Lines 7451 7468 +17
==========================================
+ Hits 6840 6860 +20
+ Misses 611 608 -3
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
doctrino
force-pushed
the
deploy-other-spaces
branch
from
20340e5 to
3ce89c6
Compare
| enable_alpha_validators: bool = False, | ||
| alpha_flags: AlphaFlagConfig | None = None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Switch this one and pas the entire alpha flag config.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thing to consider is to enable users to set a global Alpha == True, as I have feeling we will accumulate a number of alpha features, and it could be tedious if user needs to set each individually to True.
|
/gemini review |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces the 'governed spaces' alpha feature, allowing containers and views from spaces other than the main data model space to be included in validation and deployment. The changes are spread across configuration, data model analysis, deployment logic, and schema definitions. My review focuses on ensuring the new logic is correctly implemented and adheres to the project's coding standards. I've identified a typo in a variable name and an opportunity to improve type safety by avoiding typing.Any.
| continue | ||
|
|
||
| if property_.container.space == self.validation_resources.merged_data_model.space: | ||
| if property_.container.space in self.validation_resources.governed_spaces: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is now super clean, and that self.validation_resources.merged_data_model space was not the most cleanest implementation (I must say, taking blame)
| enable_alpha_validators: bool = False, | ||
| alpha_flags: AlphaFlagConfig | None = None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thing to consider is to enable users to set a global Alpha == True, as I have feeling we will accumulate a number of alpha features, and it could be tedious if user needs to set each individually to True.
2 participants
Description
New alpha feature, - governed spaces. This enable the user to include containres/views in the validation and deployment that are not part of the data model.
Bump
Changelog
Added