amend branch names to be forked-slug:branch-name #331
Conversation
dana-yaish
commented
Nov 10, 2023
•
dana-yaish
commented
- taking get_pull out of is_fork_pr for usability. I don't think it's the responsibility of is_fork_pr to do the request and get the pull's information
- overriding branch in commit's endpoint since that's the only command that actually uses it and sends it in part of the request.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #331 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 95.46% 95.48% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 80 80
Lines 2715 2722 +7
==========================================
+ Hits 2592 2599 +7
Misses 123 123
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
dana-yaish
force-pushed
the
dana/fork-branch-names
branch
from
5d9ab1b
to
202ccf0
Compare
dana-yaish
force-pushed
the
dana/fork-branch-names
branch
from
202ccf0
to
e313d72
Compare
| pull_dict = get_pull(service, decoded_slug, pr) if not token else None | ||
| if is_fork_pr(pull_dict): | ||
| headers = {} | ||
| branch = pull_dict["head"]["slug"] + ":" + branch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think this is good here, just a note for later:
since : is a legal character in real branch names, i think in the API when we double-check that this PR is from a fork we should set a different field entirely in the database that the UI can check instead of trying to parse it out of the branch name (see ugly screenshot mockup)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but would be a nice UI addition for PRs coming from a fork
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh i stand corrected, you're right! i should have checked official docs, i just read some page that said git branch names were "very permissive"
|
@matt-codecov nope it's automatic |
