-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 72
Service Account auth from saved credentials; Fix and run tests on Travis. #11
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
Conversation
|
looks good! did you manage to run tests that are included in the library? can we fix/add a test for this? |
|
@shcheklein some tests are failing, will look into it |
|
@Maxris looks like a bunch of png1, png2 files were committed, do we need them? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Guys, do we really need binary png files here? They will live in the history forever.
these 2 files - "a.png" and "b.png" are expected by tests to be in place, but it seems we can replace them with any dynamically generate pair of different(between each other) files. |
efiop
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
4a61d4b to
d13ff2e
Compare
|
@efiop @shcheklein formatting checks are added in separate commit, should be good to merge all together |
|
@Maxris could we please revert the formatting? It's impossible now to review anything. We can apply it later. That why I wanted to make it as a separate step. We have way too many things at once in this PR now. |
|
@Maxris @shcheklein Sorry for the confusion, guys 🙁 |
@shcheklein I can revert last commit, no problem, but idea was that all source code changes not related to the formatting cheks are only in the first commit bcb5e2b which you can review and add comments by above link. |
|
@Maxris ah, okay, I see. Will it be easy for you to support this structure going forward? Up to you. |
|
@shcheklein I supposed only minor further changes to the codebase in scope of this PR and make 3rd commit with them :) But if there will be a lot things to change, then better to revert formatting check commit :) |
|
@Maxris sure, let me review the commit then and we can decide after that :) |
Suor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would say this ran out of scope, we should try to not make that even less unmanageable, i.e. finish the core and merge. Other ideas might be applied later.
|
going to backup code formatting changes in remote branch |
d13ff2e to
b63ab7f
Compare
|
@shcheklein @Suor could you please check if it looks good now, thanks |
No description provided.