fix(scm): prefer starlark file for starlark pipeline #1043
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1043 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage ? 67.16%
=======================================
Files ? 330
Lines ? 14091
Branches ? 0
=======================================
Hits ? 9464
Misses ? 4148
Partials ? 479
|
claire1618
approved these changes
Jan 19, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
fixes go-vela/community#488
could have been stricter here and disallowed .yml/.yaml for starlark pipelines. what monster would do this? but would be breaking.
also improved testing a bit, including the addition for testing configbackoff properly. though i opted not to test total failure case as that would add ~10s to the test. probably could be done if retries and interval were configurable. maybe that's for another PR.