-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
kaizen: prepare for v1.0.0 #167
Conversation
Codecov ReportBase: 94.48% // Head: 95.93% // Increases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #167 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.48% 95.93% +1.44%
==========================================
Files 17 17
Lines 2068 2067 -1
==========================================
+ Hits 1954 1983 +29
+ Misses 80 60 -20
+ Partials 34 24 -10
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
Hmm, the unit tests were initially failing because of non-case-sensitive filesystem on MacOS (testData vs testdata) so I fixed that. Now they're failing with error code 143, I think we're hitting actions/runner-images#6680 Blecch. Remove a couple of heavy tests I guess? This makes sense because I added another pretty heavy benchmark from was-event-ruler. |
Hmm, could segregate the borrowed-from-ruler tests and run them as a separate CI task, or step in a task? Looking for |
Looks like go don't have a way to ignore a specific test, there are two options here (from what I see):
Regarding the ported benchmark tests, maybe we should convert them to go benchmarks? and then they will run as part of "Benchmarks" CI step? |
.chglog/config.yml
Outdated
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ options: | |||
pat: 📖 Pattern Language | |||
chore: 🧹 Chore | |||
fix: 🐞 Fix | |||
kaizen: 👩🎨 Improve |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe we should introduce commitlint as CI action to make sure we are following this guideline.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@embano1 what do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great idea!
That's probably worth trying. Would it be possible to retain the existing printout, which I have arranged to compatible with aws/event-ruler, so that we can compare performance. |
.chglog/config.yml
Outdated
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ options: | |||
pat: 📖 Pattern Language | |||
chore: 🧹 Chore | |||
fix: 🐞 Fix | |||
kaizen: 👩🎨 Improve |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great idea!
example_test.go
Outdated
@@ -1,54 +0,0 @@ | |||
package quamina_test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is was this file deleted?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There were no tests in it and nothing called it, dead code. Probably a leftover forgotten by one of us.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, ok. Let me clarify: any file example_*_test.go
in Go with functions prefixed with Example*
inside serves as documentation examples rendered by Go doc, etc. See the current version for Quamina here: https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/timbray/quamina#example-New
You can even run this example in Go doc!
Besides serving as documentation, these are also tests including assertions (see // Output: pattern matched for event: "premium user"
inside the file). If you run our tests, those will also run and fail if the example is not consistent with the code anymore - that's a great benefit of the Go test and documentation tooling :).
Please revert the deletion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, OK, I learned something today.
Folks, would it be OK to push this now and then address the CI problems with unit test and benchmark? Or should we do that cleanup first? |
Ok with me. Are you going to squash commits? |
Do you mean squash this #167 together with the CI-fix code? I don't think so, this PR lines up nicely with issue #153 (and ended up addressing a few more). "Preparing for 1.0" doesn't necessarily mean "final step before 1.0." Also it's a big PR with lots of code improvements and I'd like to land it. |
Nope, just asking whether you want to squash these 6 commits into one before merging :) |
D'oh, I thought commit --amend did that. One of these years I must really buckle down and understand git better. What is your opinion? And if we decide to do this, is there a good HOWTO somewhere? |
@embano1 All squashed per your very helpful web page there. Out of touch with the base branch because you pushed one of the CI chores, I assume I should do Update branch with the rebase option? |
Thx for the kind words! |
Ah, there's a rebase with force-push option in that button (not default). That's basically what you'd do with |
OK, I'm going to pull this on the weekend unless someone has a good reason not to. |
You mean squash-merging this PR or pulling the v1? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
fixes: #153
fixes: #144
fixes: #121
fixes: #81
Signed-off-by: Tim Bray tbray@textuality.com
Did more or less all the stuff listed in #153, mostly trivial cleanup, removed a lot of TODOs, pulled in pieces of two event-ruler unit tests (one found a bug!).
I will try in future to avoid this sort of grab-bag PR.