Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on May 5, 2025. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@Swatinem
Copy link
Contributor

@Swatinem Swatinem commented Apr 2, 2025

Instead of creating a cache instance within a worker module, use an initialized cache instance from shared instead.


Depends on codecov/shared#597

@Swatinem Swatinem requested a review from a team April 2, 2025 10:16
@Swatinem Swatinem self-assigned this Apr 2, 2025
@seer-by-sentry
Copy link
Contributor

seer-by-sentry bot commented Apr 2, 2025

✅ Sentry found no issues in your recent changes ✅

@codecov-notifications
Copy link

codecov-notifications bot commented Apr 2, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 2, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.70%. Comparing base (f1b75bb) to head (b5872b1).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1202      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.70%   97.70%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         456      454       -2     
  Lines       37047    37024      -23     
==========================================
- Hits        36196    36173      -23     
  Misses        851      851              
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 42.82% <97.05%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unit 90.49% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Swatinem added 2 commits April 3, 2025 10:31
Instead of creating a cache instance within a `worker` module, use an initialized `cache` instance from `shared` instead.
@Swatinem Swatinem force-pushed the swatinem/shared-cache branch from 330d5ca to b5872b1 Compare April 3, 2025 08:33
@Swatinem Swatinem enabled auto-merge April 3, 2025 08:35
@Swatinem Swatinem added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 3, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 078221e Apr 3, 2025
28 of 29 checks passed
@Swatinem Swatinem deleted the swatinem/shared-cache branch April 3, 2025 08:46
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants