Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Round 2: Add doc_blocks to manifest for nodes and columns #11294

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 11, 2025

Conversation

aranke
Copy link
Member

@aranke aranke commented Feb 11, 2025

Problem

#11224 (Add doc_blocks to manifest for nodes and columns) would have failed in a scenario where the user had already specified doc_blocks at the node or column level as outlined in #11282 (quick functional test on doc_blocks issue).

Solution

  • Set doc_blocks=[] during serialization if either:
    • doc_blocks is not a list
    • not every element in doc_blocks is a str
  • Add tests for the scenarios above, which should satisfy the Mashumaro type of list[str]

Checklist

  • I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me.
  • I have run this code in development, and it appears to resolve the stated issue.
  • This PR includes tests, or tests are not required or relevant for this PR.
  • This PR has no interface changes (e.g., macros, CLI, logs, JSON artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc.) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX.
  • This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions.

@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla:yes label Feb 11, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 11, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.18182% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.89%. Comparing base (7f32e42) to head (7451ca9).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (31.81%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #11294      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.95%   88.89%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         189      189              
  Lines       24139    24171      +32     
==========================================
+ Hits        21473    21487      +14     
- Misses       2666     2684      +18     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 86.15% <93.18%> (-0.14%) ⬇️
unit 62.53% <31.81%> (-0.03%) ⬇️

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

Components Coverage Δ
Unit Tests 62.53% <31.81%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
Integration Tests 86.15% <93.18%> (-0.14%) ⬇️

@aranke aranke marked this pull request as ready for review February 11, 2025 14:32
@aranke aranke requested a review from a team as a code owner February 11, 2025 14:32
Copy link
Member

@emmyoop emmyoop left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good - let just add a bit more context as to why we're updating to an empty list in some cases so future us has a better idea of what's happening.

@aranke aranke merged commit f29836f into main Feb 11, 2025
52 of 55 checks passed
@aranke aranke deleted the doc_blocks_backcompat branch February 11, 2025 16:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants