Skip to content

Conversation

@hjgraca
Copy link
Contributor

@hjgraca hjgraca commented Feb 7, 2023

Issue number: #191

Summary

Changes

  • Updated crefs to have the fully qualified name of the type

User experience

Checklist

Please leave checklist items unchecked if they do not apply to your change.

Is this a breaking change?

RFC issue number: #191

Checklist:

  • Migration process documented
  • Implement warnings (if it can live side by side)

Acknowledgment

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Disclaimer: We value your time and bandwidth. As such, any pull requests created on non-triaged issues might not be successful.

@auto-assign auto-assign bot requested a review from sliedig February 7, 2023 10:58
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2023

No related issues found. Please ensure there is an open issue related to this change to avoid significant delays or closure.

@github-actions github-actions bot added do-not-merge PRs that are blocked for varying reasons need-issue PR is missing a related issue for tracking change internal Maintenance changes labels Feb 7, 2023
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Base: 56.35% // Head: 56.35% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (d1d40bc) compared to base (73f718b).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop     #192   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    56.35%   56.35%           
========================================
  Files           41       41           
  Lines         1778     1778           
========================================
  Hits          1002     1002           
  Misses         776      776           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 56.35% <ø> (ø)

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

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...mbda.Powertools.Logging/Internal/LoggerProvider.cs 20.00% <ø> (ø)
...S.Lambda.Powertools.Logging/LoggerConfiguration.cs 100.00% <ø> (ø)
.../AWS.Lambda.Powertools.Logging/LoggerExtensions.cs 36.64% <ø> (ø)
...ls.Metrics/Serializer/JsonNamingPolicyDecorator.cs 57.14% <ø> (ø)

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@sliedig sliedig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you @hjgraca

@sliedig sliedig merged commit 3d26f5b into aws-powertools:develop Feb 7, 2023
@sliedig sliedig removed need-issue PR is missing a related issue for tracking change do-not-merge PRs that are blocked for varying reasons labels Feb 7, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2023

@awslabs/aws-lambda-powertools-net No related issues found. Please ensure 'pending-release' label is applied before releasing.

@sliedig sliedig added the pending-release Fix or implementation already in dev waiting to be released label Feb 14, 2023
@hjgraca hjgraca deleted the fix-incorrect-crefs branch May 5, 2023 18:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

internal Maintenance changes pending-release Fix or implementation already in dev waiting to be released

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants