Skip to content

Conversation

@netgirard
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@netgirard
Copy link
Contributor Author

netgirard commented Mar 7, 2023

@lhercot / @akinross / @shrsr, what needs to be done to advance these couple of PRs from me? Thanks.

@akinross
Copy link
Collaborator

akinross commented Mar 7, 2023

Hi @netgirard, thank you for your contributions. I will review your PRs this week, and will get back to you with any comments.

@netgirard
Copy link
Contributor Author

netgirard commented Mar 7, 2023

Thanks @akinross. I did run sanity and integration tests locally, but only on a limited set of python and ansible versions, so I wanted to get that workflow and coverage feedback as well in case I missed anything. Looking forward to the feedback.

Copy link
Collaborator

@akinross akinross left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Collaborator

@shrsr shrsr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@lhercot lhercot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 8, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: -53.91 ⚠️

Comparison is base (ad147dd) 90.14% compared to head (f5840b9) 36.24%.

❗ Current head f5840b9 differs from pull request most recent head c49cde1. Consider uploading reports for the commit c49cde1 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #392       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   90.14%   36.24%   -53.91%     
===========================================
  Files         160      160               
  Lines        7095     7099        +4     
  Branches     1034     1034               
===========================================
- Hits         6396     2573     -3823     
- Misses        593     4526     +3933     
+ Partials      106        0      -106     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration ?
sanity 36.24% <100.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️

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

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
plugins/modules/aci_ntp_policy.py 47.05% <100.00%> (-52.95%) ⬇️
plugins/modules/aci_ntp_server.py 40.00% <100.00%> (-60.00%) ⬇️
plugins/modules/aci_epg_to_domain.py 18.18% <0.00%> (-81.82%) ⬇️
plugins/modules/aci_static_binding_to_epg.py 19.76% <0.00%> (-80.24%) ⬇️
plugins/modules/aci_l3out_bgp_peer.py 18.75% <0.00%> (-80.00%) ⬇️
plugins/modules/aci_bulk_static_binding_to_epg.py 19.14% <0.00%> (-79.79%) ⬇️
plugins/modules/aci_domain.py 23.45% <0.00%> (-75.31%) ⬇️
plugins/modules/aci_fabric_switch_policy_group.py 25.39% <0.00%> (-74.61%) ⬇️
plugins/modules/aci_contract_subject_to_filter.py 26.31% <0.00%> (-73.69%) ⬇️
plugins/modules/aci_domain_to_encap_pool.py 25.37% <0.00%> (-73.14%) ⬇️
... and 132 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@lhercot lhercot merged commit 7af01ad into CiscoDevNet:master Mar 8, 2023
@lhercot
Copy link
Member

lhercot commented Mar 8, 2023

Thanks for your contribution!

@netgirard netgirard deleted the ntp-annotation branch March 8, 2023 19:05
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