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

chore: bump version to v0.14.0 #351

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 13, 2023
Merged

chore: bump version to v0.14.0 #351

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 13, 2023

Conversation

kylehuntsman
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jul 12, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #351 (c8306af) into main (6c8a3dd) will increase coverage by 0.31%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #351      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.89%   76.21%   +0.31%     
==========================================
  Files          86       86              
  Lines        6575     6575              
==========================================
+ Hits         4990     5011      +21     
+ Misses       1302     1287      -15     
+ Partials      283      277       -6     

see 7 files with indirect coverage changes

@github-actions
Copy link

Suggested version: v0.14.0

Comparing to: v0.13.0 (diff)

Changes in go.mod file(s):

diff --git a/go.mod b/go.mod
index e647c2d..dd5d30c 100644
--- a/go.mod
+++ b/go.mod
@@ -22,10 +22,11 @@ require (
 	github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs-exchange-interface v0.2.0
 	github.com/ipfs/go-ipld-format v0.5.0
 	github.com/ipfs/go-log/v2 v2.5.1
-	github.com/ipfs/go-unixfsnode v1.7.1
+	github.com/ipfs/go-unixfsnode v1.7.2
 	github.com/ipld/go-car/v2 v2.10.1
 	github.com/ipld/go-codec-dagpb v1.6.0
-	github.com/ipld/go-ipld-prime v0.20.1-0.20230329011551-5056175565b0
+	github.com/ipld/go-ipld-prime v0.20.1-0.20230707090759-349deb22a1fd
+	github.com/ipld/ipld/specs v0.0.0-20230705075038-29da2e853cdb
 	github.com/ipni/go-libipni v0.0.8-0.20230425184153-86a1fcb7f7ff
 	github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p v0.27.1
 	github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-routing-helpers v0.7.0
@@ -144,6 +145,7 @@ require (
 	github.com/raulk/go-watchdog v1.3.0 // indirect
 	github.com/russross/blackfriday/v2 v2.1.0 // indirect
 	github.com/spaolacci/murmur3 v1.1.0 // indirect
+	github.com/warpfork/go-testmark v0.12.1 // indirect
 	github.com/whyrusleeping/cbor v0.0.0-20171005072247-63513f603b11 // indirect
 	github.com/whyrusleeping/cbor-gen v0.0.0-20230126041949-52956bd4c9aa // indirect
 	github.com/whyrusleeping/chunker v0.0.0-20181014151217-fe64bd25879f // indirect

gorelease says:

gorelease: go: updates to go.sum needed, disabled by -mod=readonly

gocompat says:

Your branch is up to date with 'origin/main'.

Automatically created GitHub Release

A draft GitHub Release has been created.
It is going to be published when this PR is merged.
You can modify its' body to include any release notes you wish to include with the release.

davidd8
davidd8 previously approved these changes Jul 12, 2023
Copy link
Collaborator

@davidd8 davidd8 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM after tests pass.

@davidd8 davidd8 dismissed their stale review July 12, 2023 20:51

holding off due to untested features in the release

@kylehuntsman
Copy link
Contributor Author

kylehuntsman commented Jul 12, 2023

Oh, probably needs a look. I didn't realise byte ranges got merged. That means the diff isn't so "safe" because we change some selector stuff--mainly switching from unixfs-preload to an alternative strategy. So even if they don't use the byte range stuff yet there's a slight behaviour change that does introduce some degree of risk so we should proceed with care.
@rvagg

holding off due to untested features in the release
@davidd8

I don't believe the untested comment is accurate. The currently failing tests are for the byte range feature that @rvagg was talking about offline. The comment was referring to the idea that the underlying traversal strategy changed the behavior underneath, which imposes risk, not that it poses a risk because the features are untested.

@kylehuntsman
Copy link
Contributor Author

kylehuntsman commented Jul 12, 2023

So the tests are flaky. They pass on my machine and after being re-ran. Also seeing similar test failures in other OSs on other PRs.

Copy link
Collaborator

@hannahhoward hannahhoward left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

APPROVE!

@kylehuntsman kylehuntsman merged commit d5e275d into main Jul 13, 2023
25 checks passed
@kylehuntsman kylehuntsman deleted the rel-v0.14.0 branch July 13, 2023 00:07
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.

4 participants