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

Add support for the remove label endpoint #210

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 18, 2018
Merged

Add support for the remove label endpoint #210

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 18, 2018

Conversation

BenFradet
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@juanpedromoreno juanpedromoreno left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I added some minor comments, once addresses LGTM!

request
.withMethod("DELETE")
.withPath(
s"/repos/$validRepoOwner/$validRepoName/issues/$invalidIssueNumber/lablels/${validIssueLabel.head}")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is a typo here, in the URL path. Lablels-> labels

@@ -93,6 +93,17 @@ trait GHIssuesSpec[T] extends BaseIntegrationSpec[T] {
})
}

"Issues >> RemoveLabel" should "return a list of labels" in {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should remove the label from the issue successfully?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I went with return a list of removed labels since it actually returns the label that was removed in a list, wdyt?

@BenFradet BenFradet merged commit c6eda04 into master Jun 18, 2018
@BenFradet BenFradet deleted the bf-rm-label branch June 18, 2018 20:38
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