Skip to content

fix(base): allow persisting local attributes when updating object #1443

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

nejch
Copy link
Member

@nejch nejch commented May 2, 2021

Related to #1395.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #1443 (796c700) into master (b563cdc) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 81.81%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1443   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   80.24%   80.24%           
=======================================
  Files          73       73           
  Lines        4064     4081   +17     
=======================================
+ Hits         3261     3275   +14     
- Misses        803      806    +3     
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 80.24% <81.81%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

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

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
gitlab/mixins.py 77.13% <66.66%> (-0.25%) ⬇️
gitlab/base.py 88.88% <100.00%> (+0.28%) ⬆️
gitlab/types.py 90.00% <0.00%> (-2.60%) ⬇️
gitlab/exceptions.py 96.52% <0.00%> (-1.30%) ⬇️
gitlab/__main__.py 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
gitlab/cli.py 56.36% <0.00%> (+2.30%) ⬆️

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 b563cdc...796c700. Read the comment docs.

@max-wittig
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure, if this makes sense. python-gitlab should be a light wrapper around the GitLab API. If we start adding more custom things (other than the required ones e.g. lazy) that might become less maintainable and maybe also confusing for the users? WDYT?

@nejch
Copy link
Member Author

nejch commented May 6, 2021

Closing this in favor of #1448 as discussed.

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