#454 Keep bot members in place regardless of "enforce" setting

[lhokktyn]

This PR aims to address the issue described in #454. I've gone for a keep_bots option which seems more descriptive of what it actual does, rather than the ignore_bot_members mentioned in the original issue. Happy to change this is if needs be.

Python isn't my first language so I've largely picked through what exists already and taken a steer from that. Any guidance on improvements would be much appreciated :)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #544 (846de95) into main (b2161f8) will increase coverage by 40.05%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #544       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   42.03%   82.09%   +40.05%     
===========================================
  Files          70       70               
  Lines        2650     2658        +8     
===========================================
+ Hits         1114     2182     +1068     
+ Misses       1536      476     -1060     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...abform/processors/group/group_members_processor.py	98.88% <100.00%> (+83.77%)	⬆️
gitlabform/processors/project/members_processor.py	89.85% <100.00%> (+72.93%)	⬆️

... and 57 files with indirect coverage changes

[gdubicki]

Hey @lhokktyn, this PR looks excellent! The code is clean and stylish, you updated the docs and added the tests, which are passing of course - everything is in place! 🥳 Let me merge this now and I will make a release with this feature later over the weekend.

Python isn't my first language so I've largely picked through what exists already and taken a steer from that. Any guidance on improvements would be much appreciated :)

Oh, man, you are too modest! I really don't have any suggestions for you, you did great. But perhaps you can share your experience with contributing to the project? Were the contribution docs helpful, if you read them? Was the code easy to extend? Anything that we could improve?

[gdubicki]

I just noticed that this PR is technically still a draft... Do you want to add anything more, @lhokktyn, or can I switch it to "ready to merge" and merge?

[lhokktyn]

Oh, man, you are too modest! I really don't have any suggestions for you, you did great. But perhaps you can share your experience with contributing to the project? Were the contribution docs helpful, if you read them? Was the code easy to extend? Anything that we could improve?

Thanks @gdubicki, that's much appreciated :)

It was honestly very straightforward to get a development environment up and running - the docs just worked as written! The suites of tests is comprehensive (as are the CI checks) which provides a great sense of safety when it comes to making changes. I found the code well modularised, and easy to navigate to find the parts I needed. Most of my time was actually spent familiarising myself with some of pytest's features like fixture scoping and yielding, and the -s flag came in very handy to get some basic console output spitting out (I didn't venture into using a Python debugger).

I just noticed that this PR is technically still a draft... Do you want to add anything more, @lhokktyn, or can I switch it to "ready to merge" and merge?

Some colleagues are doing a bit of testing internally just to verify this change actually addresses the issue we were facing, but once that's done (hopefully this week) then I'll come and flag as ready. Hope that's ok.

[lhokktyn]

@gdubicki we've tested in house and good to go!

[gdubicki]

Released in v3.6.0.