Skip to content

Pyoculus migration#601

Open
smiet wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
cbs/pyoculus_migration
Open

Pyoculus migration#601
smiet wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
cbs/pyoculus_migration

Conversation

@smiet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@smiet smiet commented Mar 18, 2026

pyoculus repo moved from private ownership by @zhisong to github organization pyoculus for future maintainability.

Organization has owners @smiet and @zhisong.
Organization structure allows sharing and changing of ownership of repo and future maintainability, as well as automating pypi uploads (wip on pyoculus end)

`pyoculus` repo moved to github organization `pyoculus` for future
maintainability.
@smiet smiet requested a review from mbkumar March 18, 2026 09:00
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.15%. Comparing base (f8c9be3) to head (4864b34).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #601      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.14%   90.15%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          84       84              
  Lines       17880    17880              
==========================================
+ Hits        16118    16120       +2     
+ Misses       1762     1760       -2     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 90.15% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@mbkumar mbkumar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you also bring back the SPEC related functionality back along with this in a single PR? It does not make sense to have these changes when SPEC is effectively disabled.

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