Skip to content

Adding enabled, description fields to label application rules #115

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 17, 2021

Conversation

kamaleshnneerasa
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Please include a summary of the change, motivation and context.

Testing

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Please summarize what did you test and what needs to be tested e.g. deployed and tested helm chart locally.

Checklist:

  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

Documentation

Make sure that you have documented corresponding changes in this repository or hypertrace docs repo if required.

data.getName(),
conditionList,
labelAction,
data.getEnabled(),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Did we handle backwards compat at the config layer? Or planning to handle it manually since this full feature isn't exposed yet? Current impl will default any pre-existing rules to disabled since that's the default value of the new boolean.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are no existing label application rule. Checked in saas-dev.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 17, 2021

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (main@a024396). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 76b32f9 differs from pull request most recent head b1b48c8. Consider uploading reports for the commit b1b48c8 to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #115   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   23.03%           
  Complexity      ?       75           
=======================================
  Files           ?       65           
  Lines           ?     1680           
  Branches        ?       52           
=======================================
  Hits            ?      387           
  Misses          ?     1284           
  Partials        ?        9           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 23.03% <ø> (?)

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


Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a024396...b1b48c8. Read the comment docs.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@saxenakshitiz saxenakshitiz merged commit 2647937 into main Nov 17, 2021
@saxenakshitiz saxenakshitiz deleted the ENG-12057 branch November 17, 2021 16:12
@github-actions
Copy link

Unit Test Results

11 files  ±0  11 suites  ±0   12s ⏱️ -1s
24 tests ±0  24 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 2647937. ± Comparison against base commit a024396.

skjindal93 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2024
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.

3 participants