Skip to content

Conversation

@LucasG0
Copy link
Contributor

@LucasG0 LucasG0 commented Apr 10, 2025

Fixes #349

Corresponding infrahub pipeline: opsmill/infrahub#6266

@cloudflare-workers-and-pages
Copy link

cloudflare-workers-and-pages bot commented Apr 10, 2025

Deploying infrahub-sdk-python with  Cloudflare Pages  Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit: f2da7a2
Status: ✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL: https://9d321b8d.infrahub-sdk-python.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL: https://lgu-fix-node-update.infrahub-sdk-python.pages.dev

View logs

@LucasG0 LucasG0 force-pushed the lgu-fix-node-update branch from 02fb75c to 58d2908 Compare April 10, 2025 09:16
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 10, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.85714% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
infrahub_sdk/node.py 92.85% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           stable     #351      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.44%   72.46%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          91       91              
  Lines        8169     8179      +10     
  Branches     1572     1576       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         5918     5927       +9     
  Misses       1840     1840              
- Partials      411      412       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration-tests 22.33% <64.28%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
python-3.10 46.54% <57.14%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
python-3.11 46.52% <57.14%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
python-3.12 ?
python-3.13 46.54% <57.14%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
python-3.9 44.89% <57.14%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
python-filler-3.12 25.10% <28.57%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
infrahub_sdk/node.py 77.38% <92.85%> (+0.11%) ⬆️
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@LucasG0 LucasG0 force-pushed the lgu-fix-node-update branch from 58d2908 to f2da7a2 Compare April 10, 2025 09:36
@LucasG0 LucasG0 marked this pull request as ready for review April 10, 2025 10:36
@LucasG0 LucasG0 requested a review from a team April 10, 2025 10:37
Copy link
Contributor

@ogenstad ogenstad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

A potential future consideration would be if we should update the same field if we call save additional times. But it should only be a very corner case optimisation. And even then it could very well be that the attribute has been updated on the server already and we want to overwrite it if it differs.

@LucasG0 LucasG0 merged commit d24d635 into stable Apr 10, 2025
19 checks passed
@LucasG0 LucasG0 deleted the lgu-fix-node-update branch April 10, 2025 12:18
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.

bug: Updating node attribute to its original value

2 participants