-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 102
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
Review with quick actions #741
Review with quick actions #741
Conversation
1a7463e
to
3ea4cc3
Compare
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.
Thanks @zampierilucas :)
I found an issue when using --with-comment |
Submitted a new commit with a fix to --with-comment and everything should be working fine. |
4e79c26
to
2d33f7e
Compare
@zampierilucas I don't think the build issue you're facing is really related to your PR. |
@bmeneguele GREAT!! I mean bad, really bad :p |
Possibly, but it shouldn't be panic'ing, but just dropping an error of any sort. |
The issue is related to something on gitlab side. Two commands in the very same MR, but in different
The first run returns what is expected, in the last one, it doesn't. Something changed in the API? |
For some really weird reason the discussions API is not returning new notes added to the MR, no matter if it's created using the Notes (where I tested it using the API directly (through |
Well, the problem turned out to be a lack of an HTTP header in API responses for MRs/Issues with more than 10k comments, which happens in our testing repo. @zampierilucas helped me to find the issue and the PR #745 was created with the fix. |
As soon as #745 is merged, this PR will need to be rebased. |
10k? What have you been doing to my MRs? 😄 |
@bmeneguele sure, I will rebase it as soon as 745 gets merged :D
@prarit GL considers 'entries' as any historical data on the MR, not only 'comments', for example, 'X person approved the MR' is also an entry, That's why we were able to beet GitLab 10k restriction that fast :p |
Entries? I'm just going to assume that somewhere there is a character-by-character review of one of my changesets. |
@zampierilucas #745 is now merged, please go ahead and rebase this one here so we can make sure it's also fine :) |
Merged comment and approve api calls into a single one. Signed-off-by: Lucas Zampieri <[email protected]>
Merged comment and approve api calls into a single one. Signed-off-by: Lucas Zampieri <[email protected]>
Added quickaction to the end of file when using -F; Removed unessary reverse bool; Signed-off-by: Lucas Zampieri <[email protected]>
Moved --with-comment threatment externally, due to conflicts with -m and -f Signed-off-by: Lucas Zampieri <[email protected]>
2d33f7e
to
8bbc211
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #741 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 54.71% 54.75% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 77 77
Lines 5596 5612 +16
==========================================
+ Hits 3062 3073 +11
- Misses 2251 2255 +4
- Partials 283 284 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
This is the second part of the change to unify the calls made when approving/commenting on an MR.
The new code removes the usage of the
merge_request/approve
API and instead uses the/approve
and/unapprove
notes API quick actions.Fixes: #708