feat(config): Allow overriding of remote API URL

[pauliyobo]

Description

This PR aims to simplify the configuration of remote API URL for a particular remote by adding the option in the remote section.

Motivation and Context

Up until now, an environment variable needed to be set such as GITLAB_API_URL_ENV
fixes #704

How Has This Been Tested?

I only ran the existing tests, as I was unsure of where tests for this feature would have to be added. If there's a particular place I should consider adding them in, let me know.

Screenshots / Logs (if applicable)

Types of Changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation (no code change)
• Refactor (refactoring production code)
• Other

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have formatted the code with rustfmt.
• I checked the lints with clippy.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

Questions

The change introduces a refactor which I wouldn't consider a breaking change. The functionality is preserved but essentially the api_url() method in the RemoteClient has now a default implementation which leverages on the constants API_URL and API_URL_ENV which allows us to just implements the various traits by setting the appropriate constants without duplicating the code.
I have two questions related to this:

• Is this a welcomed refactor?
• In the following code:

https://github.com/pauliyobo/git-cliff/blob/c2398dc452b0f8c3aef1a3f7db8c6748a6de7f24/git-cliff-core/src/repo.rs#L397-L444

I wasn't sure of whether the returned upstream remote should also have its proper api_url set. Is that the case? I have left it on None for now.

[welcome]

Thanks for opening this pull request! Please check out our contributing guidelines! ⛰️

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 25.00000% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 43.35%. Comparing base (d0848ff) to head (e80ca3e).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
git-cliff-core/src/remote/mod.rs	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #896      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   43.14%   43.35%   +0.21%     
==========================================
  Files          21       21              
  Lines        1718     1712       -6     
==========================================
+ Hits          741      742       +1     
+ Misses        977      970       -7     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit-tests	43.35% <25.00%> (+0.21%)	⬆️

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.

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests
• JS Bundle Analysis - Avoid shipping oversized bundles

[orhun]

Hello, thanks for the PR! I pushed some nitpicks & refactored the remote handling a bit not to keep you waiting any longer :) Now, when it comes to your questions:

I only ran the existing tests, as I was unsure of where tests for this feature would have to be added. If there's a particular place I should consider adding them in, let me know.

Yup, we should add a fixture test to make sure this is working. I would suggest copying test-gitlab-integration and using a project hosted on a custom GitLab instance (e.g. arch-repro-status.

Also, I couldn't see the part where we override the remote URL with the value taken from config yet. We should probably do that as well.

Is this a welcomed refactor?

Yup, I think it's good :)

I wasn't sure of whether the returned upstream remote should also have its proper api_url set.

Not really, this should be left like this for now.

---

Sorry for the delayed review, would you be able to address these sometime? 😊

[pauliyobo]

Hello, thanks for the feedback.
I'm a bit busy this week, will try to get something out by the next.
Thank you.

[orhun]

Thanks for the PR!

[welcome]

Congrats on merging your first pull request! ⛰️