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

♻️ Output content in needs.json not description #1312

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 2, 2024

Conversation

chrisjsewell
Copy link
Member

@chrisjsewell chrisjsewell commented Oct 2, 2024

I'm not sure if there was a legacy reason for this, but it is an unnecessary complication/confusion,
to convert between content and description and breaks the needs_schema and defaults.

Note, needs.json importing logic has been adapted to handle reading of both new and legacy formats

I'm not sure if there was a legacy reason for this,
but it is an unnecessary complication/confusion,
to convert between `content` and `description` and breaks the `needs_schema` and defaults.
@chrisjsewell chrisjsewell requested review from ubmarco and danwos October 2, 2024 12:45
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 2, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.84%. Comparing base (4e10030) to head (390e611).
Report is 93 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1312      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.87%   87.84%   +0.96%     
==========================================
  Files          56       60       +4     
  Lines        6532     7033     +501     
==========================================
+ Hits         5675     6178     +503     
+ Misses        857      855       -2     
Flag Coverage Δ
pytests 87.84% <100.00%> (+0.96%) ⬆️

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.

Copy link
Member

@ubmarco ubmarco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approved.
Should we decide for one field name and add a deprecation for reading needs.json when it's using the other name? Maintaining both names is effort on our side.

@chrisjsewell
Copy link
Member Author

Should we decide for one field name and add a deprecation for reading needs.json when it's using the other name?

will look at this in a separate PR, about optionally warning on unknown keys

@chrisjsewell chrisjsewell merged commit 02b2494 into master Oct 2, 2024
17 checks passed
@chrisjsewell chrisjsewell deleted the needs_json_content branch October 2, 2024 16:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants