#214 new attributes failed_builds and succeeded_builds for pull-was-merged
#296
Conversation
|
@Yegorov @tank-bohr please review |
| @@ -641,6 +636,14 @@ def test_pull_request_event_with_comments | |||
| assert_equal(1, f.comments_resolved) | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| def test_count_numbers_of_workflow_builds | |||
| fb = Factbase.new | |||
| load_it('github-events', fb, Judges::Options.new({ 'repositories' => 'foo/foo', 'testing' => true })) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Suban05 Why not use web mock for this cases? Testing mode used for run yml files, for example - https://github.com/zerocracy/judges-action/blob/master/judges/github-events/quick-scan.yml
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Yegorov good question. For the pull-was-merged event, we use Fbe.github_graph. Maybe I don't understand something, but it's very difficult to mock this thing by WebMock. And I use a fake client for Fbe.github_graph. However, there is an options argument in both clients (Fbe.octo and Fbe.github_graph), and when I set testing globally, Fbe.octo also becomes a fake client. That's why I use fake clients
|
@yegor256 please check |
|
@Suban05 can't merge, there are git conflicts, please resolve them |
|
@yegor256 done |
|
@Suban05 thanks! |
|
@tank-bohr Hey there! 👋 Great job on the review! You've snagged +4 points for this one. Here's the breakdown: +8 as the base, -10 because we only saw 2 comments (we love detailed feedback!), and +6 to keep you above the minimum. Remember, more comments could boost your score next time - up to 8 points for chatty reviews! Your running balance is now at +136. Keep up the good work and happy coding! 💻🚀 |
|
@Suban05 Great job on your contribution! 🎉 You've earned +21 points: +16 base, +5 for 53 hits-of-code. No deductions for excessive code or lack of reviews. Your balance is now +456. Keep up the good work and remember, quality matters in our review process. Looking forward to your next contribution! |
@yegor256 merge zerocracy/fbe#77 PR before
Closes #214