Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: Support nyc report --check-coverage #984

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 3, 2019

Conversation

@isaacs
Copy link
Collaborator

isaacs commented Feb 2, 2019

No description provided.

@isaacs isaacs requested review from bcoe and coreyfarrell Feb 2, 2019
@isaacs isaacs force-pushed the isaacs:report-and-check branch from 8a30a52 to 85e61ed Feb 2, 2019
@isaacs

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

isaacs commented Feb 2, 2019

(force-pushed to fix lint error)

@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

coveralls commented Feb 2, 2019

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 96.399% when pulling 85e61ed on isaacs:report-and-check into 29e6f5e on istanbuljs:master.

@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

coveralls commented Feb 2, 2019

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 96.399% when pulling 8a30a52 on isaacs:report-and-check into 29e6f5e on istanbuljs:master.

@isaacs

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

isaacs commented Feb 3, 2019

So does 2 approvals means it's cool for me to land this? I just realized I have write access on this org, but I don't wanna mess up any process.

@coreyfarrell coreyfarrell merged commit dd48410 into istanbuljs:master Feb 3, 2019
2 checks passed
2 checks passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
coverage/coveralls Coverage remained the same at 96.399%
Details
@coreyfarrell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

coreyfarrell commented Feb 3, 2019

So does 2 approvals means it's cool for me to land this? I just realized I have write access on this org, but I don't wanna mess up any process.

I just did it. For this PR a 'squash and merge' with the provided commit message was fine (you followed conventional-commit). I have no objection if you use 'squash and merge' for approved non-breaking changes as long as you make sure the commit message follows conventional-commit rules. For breaking changes I'd prefer that we have a chance to decide when those get landed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.