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

fix(ta): pass impl_type in finisher#1187

Merged
joseph-sentry merged 1 commit intomainfrom
joseph/quick-fix
Mar 31, 2025
Merged

fix(ta): pass impl_type in finisher#1187
joseph-sentry merged 1 commit intomainfrom
joseph/quick-fix

Conversation

@joseph-sentry
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

we are currently not passing the impl_type to the rollups and flakes tasks in the finisher, even though the impl_type might be both, which means the tasks aren't running the logic they should be according to the feature flag

we are currently not passing the impl_type to the rollups and flakes
tasks in the finisher, even though the impl_type might be both, which
means the tasks aren't running the logic they should be according to
the feature flag
@sentry
Copy link
Copy Markdown

sentry Bot commented Mar 28, 2025

🔍 Existing Issues For Review

Your pull request is modifying functions with the following pre-existing issues:

📄 File: tasks/test_results_finisher.py

Function Unhandled Issue
run_impl TypeError: 'bool' object is not iterable app.task...
Event Count: 60

Did you find this useful? React with a 👍 or 👎

@seer-by-sentry
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ Sentry found no issues in your recent changes ✅

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Mar 28, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.71%. Comparing base (6e3bd8b) to head (857068f).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1187   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.71%   97.71%           
=======================================
  Files         455      455           
  Lines       37203    37201    -2     
=======================================
- Hits        36353    36352    -1     
+ Misses        850      849    -1     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 42.76% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unit 90.54% <0.00%> (+<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.

@codecov-notifications
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov-notifications Bot commented Mar 28, 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!

@joseph-sentry joseph-sentry requested a review from a team March 31, 2025 13:56
@joseph-sentry joseph-sentry added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 31, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit a077a2f Mar 31, 2025
43 of 45 checks passed
@joseph-sentry joseph-sentry deleted the joseph/quick-fix branch March 31, 2025 15:32
@sentry
Copy link
Copy Markdown

sentry Bot commented Mar 31, 2025

Suspect Issues

This pull request was deployed and Sentry observed the following issues:

  • ‼️ RepositoryWithoutValidBotError app.tasks.test_results.TestResultsFinisherTask View Issue
  • ‼️ TorngitServer5xxCodeError: Github is having 5xx issues app.tasks.test_results.TestResultsFinisherTask View Issue
  • ‼️ TorngitServer5xxCodeError: Github is having 5xx issues app.tasks.test_results.TestResultsFinisherTask View Issue
  • ‼️ OperationalError: server closed the connection unexpectedly app.tasks.test_results.TestResultsFinisherTask View Issue

Did you find this useful? React with a 👍 or 👎

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.

2 participants