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

chore: Create a Basic Example to serve utility of AuthX #178

Merged
merged 8 commits into from Dec 29, 2021
Merged

Conversation

yezz123
Copy link
Owner

@yezz123 yezz123 commented Dec 17, 2021

I tried here to create a dockerized authentication API helping Developers to understand how AuthX works correctly.

  • Mostly you could use a Pre-configured Dockerfile to run the project:
$ docker-compose up

@yezz123 yezz123 added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 17, 2021
@yezz123 yezz123 self-assigned this Dec 17, 2021
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 17, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #178 (9aaa8f3) into main (a3f6843) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #178   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.10%   93.10%           
=======================================
  Files          21       21           
  Lines         609      609           
  Branches       51       51           
=======================================
  Hits          567      567           
  Misses         33       33           
  Partials        9        9           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a3f6843...9aaa8f3. Read the comment docs.

@lgtm-com
Copy link

lgtm-com bot commented Dec 17, 2021

This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging bba21a9 into 3968739 - view on LGTM.com

new alerts:

  • 1 for Wrong number of arguments in a class instantiation

@lgtm-com
Copy link

lgtm-com bot commented Dec 25, 2021

This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging ab1a4f5 into a2ef89d - view on LGTM.com

new alerts:

  • 1 for Unused import

@lgtm-com
Copy link

lgtm-com bot commented Dec 29, 2021

This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 663c62d into a3f6843 - view on LGTM.com

new alerts:

  • 1 for Unused import

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 507 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Extra Large
Size       : +507 -0
Percentile : 83.57%

Total files changed: 19

Change summary by file extension:
.dockerignore : +180 -0
.sample : +31 -0
.py : +138 -0
.yml : +43 -0
.txt : +0 -0
.md : +20 -0
example/app/Dockerfile : +13 -0
example/app/Makefile : +17 -0
example/app/key/private_key : +27 -0
example/app/key/public_key : +8 -0
example/middleware/Dockerfile : +13 -0
example/middleware/Makefile : +17 -0

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@yezz123 yezz123 merged commit 6d43ecc into main Dec 29, 2021
@yezz123 yezz123 deleted the example branch December 29, 2021 19:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Extra Large
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant