Skip to content

Conversation

@gruebel
Copy link
Member

@gruebel gruebel commented Nov 24, 2024

This PR

@gruebel gruebel requested a review from a team as a code owner November 24, 2024 17:21
Copy link
Member

@aepfli aepfli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I left some comments about some tradeoffs I made - I hope this helps; my reviews are still not the most valuable, especially with the build toolchain. - and I am fine if this supersedes my pr. I just want to get this sdk forward and a little bit more in sync with the java version feature wise

@gruebel
Copy link
Member Author

gruebel commented Nov 24, 2024

I left some comments about some tradeoffs I made - I hope this helps; my reviews are still not the most valuable, especially with the build toolchain. - and I am fine if this supersedes my pr. I just want to get this sdk forward and a little bit more in sync with the java version feature wise

after doing this change I now remember why we have the shell script, I sadly have to revert this part. The big problem is we need the generated protobuf files inside the provider namespace, otherwise thet dangle somewhere outside and can conflict with any package just named schemas. the script did one import thing changing the import statement in the protobuf files to point to the different path.

@aepfli
Copy link
Member

aepfli commented Nov 24, 2024

107b845

with this commit, i changed the generator to mypy-protobuf - which allowed my to specify a proper path without issues, and custom manipulation of the protobuf files

@gruebel gruebel force-pushed the autogenerate_proto_files branch from 5f390d0 to 214b119 Compare November 26, 2024 18:21
Signed-off-by: gruebel <[email protected]>
@gruebel gruebel requested a review from beeme1mr November 26, 2024 19:24
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 26, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.90909% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 95.03%. Comparing base (d8e10c7) to head (8942418).
Report is 50 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...enfeature/contrib/provider/flagd/resolvers/grpc.py 88.88% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #115      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.55%   95.03%   +4.47%     
==========================================
  Files           8       13       +5     
  Lines         180      483     +303     
==========================================
+ Hits          163      459     +296     
- Misses         17       24       +7     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests ?

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.

@gruebel gruebel requested a review from toddbaert November 27, 2024 07:58
@toddbaert
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

@toddbaert toddbaert merged commit 62cda8e into main Nov 27, 2024
19 checks passed
@toddbaert toddbaert deleted the autogenerate_proto_files branch November 27, 2024 13:29
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