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

Fixes ghost users associated with pull requests, issues and comments #144

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 22, 2017

Conversation

juanpedromoreno
Copy link
Member

When one user is removed completely from Github, the API returns null (https://github.com/ghost), a possibility not contemplated until now.

This PR makes the users associated with issues, pull requests and issue comments as an optional field.

Copy link
Contributor

@BenFradet BenFradet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm wondering if the following couldn't be affected too:

What do you think?

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented May 22, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #144 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##           master   #144   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage      88%    88%           
=====================================
  Files          36     36           
  Lines         550    550           
  Branches        2      1    -1     
=====================================
  Hits          484    484           
  Misses         66     66
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...c/main/scala/github4s/free/domain/Repository.scala 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
.../main/scala/github4s/free/domain/PullRequest.scala 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
...ub4s/shared/src/main/scala/github4s/Decoders.scala 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

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 aaee622...b9c1184. Read the comment docs.

@juanpedromoreno
Copy link
Member Author

juanpedromoreno commented May 22, 2017

👍

  • In the first case, I don't think either (it should return a 404)
  • In the release case, I've just tested it and it turns out that the API doesn't return any result (404) for tags without authors.
  • For the statuses, here the most interesting result 500 error 😮

@juanpedromoreno
Copy link
Member Author

Anyway, let's make optional releases and statuses.

Copy link
Contributor

@BenFradet BenFradet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 👍 , merging when green

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.

3 participants