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

fix bug in sync #262

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 6, 2023
Merged

fix bug in sync #262

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 6, 2023

Conversation

dougbrn
Copy link
Collaborator

@dougbrn dougbrn commented Oct 6, 2023

Small bug fix for the sync PR that just went in.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 6, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (5a93408) 93.60% compared to head (de376ee) 93.78%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #262      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.60%   93.78%   +0.17%     
==========================================
  Files          22       23       +1     
  Lines        1142     1174      +32     
==========================================
+ Hits         1069     1101      +32     
  Misses         73       73              
Files Coverage Δ
src/tape/ensemble.py 92.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

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

@dougbrn dougbrn requested a review from drewoldag October 6, 2023 17:51
@dougbrn dougbrn marked this pull request as ready for review October 6, 2023 17:58
Copy link
Contributor

@drewoldag drewoldag left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good. Any unit tests for this?

@dougbrn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dougbrn commented Oct 6, 2023

@drewoldag There is an existing test that exercises this code, but it has a blindspot where it doesn't explicitly remove a whole objects worth of sources from the source table. This led to the unit test failing to actually catch when the object table wasn't syncing to source. I've added another commit which expands the test to catch this.

@dougbrn dougbrn merged commit 1e5c20b into main Oct 6, 2023
9 checks passed
@dougbrn dougbrn deleted the sync_bug branch December 11, 2023 19:27
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