-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 669
feat(api): allow updating protected branches #2771
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
Conversation
7635a23
to
e030004
Compare
0b98aa8
to
85163f7
Compare
I don't understand why the integration test fails. It works on my local instance, and the code seems to make sense:
|
Just a guess, but it may need to use the
|
Sadly our functional tests still run against 15.4 (yes, I know!) because we had issues with flaky and failing tests when upgrading. This was introduced in 15.6 so this is sort of expected. We need to take the time to fix that soon I guess. I would suggest adding a skip or xfail (I forget if we still have a decorator for gitlab versions - that would be ideal. At least we have a |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2771 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 96.48% 96.52% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 90 90
Lines 5866 5873 +7
==========================================
+ Hits 5660 5669 +9
+ Misses 206 204 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
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 @Sjord and sorry for the delays! I'll go ahead and merge this now, but I'll squash the commits if that's ok with you as the other commits aren't user-facing fixes. Thanks again!
cef02d2
to
520f937
Compare
Is this expected to also work with The PATCH api requires to send So using the python-gitlab library to modify the |
I made this to support It is indeed a pain that the API expects different information than it returns. I have been bitten by this before, and I think I saw an issue about this in some other context, but I can't find it right now. Unfortunately, there is not really a clear solution for this. Perhaps it's better to create a new issue for your problem. This pull request is already closed so comments here will get out of sight. |
Closes #2390
Changes
Documentation and testing
Please consider whether this PR needs documentation and tests. This is not required, but highly appreciated: