Skip to content

feat(api): add support for external status check #3098

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 27, 2025
Merged

feat(api): add support for external status check #3098

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 27, 2025

Conversation

SachinKSingh28
Copy link
Contributor

Implements #2632

TODO:

  • Add documentation for project merge request status check manager.
  • Add method for getting a single status check for project.
  • Add method for setting the status check for an MR.

nejch
nejch requested changes Jan 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@nejch nejch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks a lot @SachinKSingh28, this looks great already! I think we should maybe do the TODOs in a follow-up PR, as this is already a pretty big diff for reviews.

One thing I'd maybe like to change is align the external_status_checks wording with upstream gitlab. I know it's not done consistently by them for MR/project level, but just in case to avoid future issues I'd like to change this on the project level. Let me know if you have any questions 🙇

The test failures seem unrelated at the moment, feel free to rebase and I'm sure it'll resolve itself but I'll investigate otherwise.

@SachinKSingh28 SachinKSingh28 force-pushed the feat/add-status-check branch 7 times, most recently from 80096eb to 8f1c5f0 Compare January 27, 2025 11:24
@nejch
Copy link
Member

nejch commented Jan 27, 2025

I think we're almost good to go here, just need to adapt the doc underlines (see my exact suggestions).

I'm not a fan of RST either 😀

@nejch nejch mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2025
Open
3 tasks
@SachinKSingh28
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think we're almost good to go here, just need to adapt the doc underlines (see my exact suggestions).

I'm not a fan of RST either 😀

Thanks @nejch for adding the task for follow up changes. Will soon create another MR to sort them.

@nejch nejch enabled auto-merge (rebase) January 27, 2025 12:03
@nejch nejch merged commit 175b355 into python-gitlab:main Jan 27, 2025
16 checks passed
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 27, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.78%. Comparing base (de29503) to head (0169c45).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3098      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.77%   96.78%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          96       97       +1     
  Lines        6293     6319      +26     
==========================================
+ Hits         6090     6116      +26     
  Misses        203      203
Flag Coverage Δ
api_func_v4 83.05% <100.00%> (+0.13%) ⬆️
cli_func_v4 83.08% <100.00%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
unit 89.30% <100.00%> (+0.04%) ⬆️

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

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
gitlab/v4/objects/__init__.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
gitlab/v4/objects/merge_requests.py 89.80% <100.00%> (+0.13%) ⬆️
gitlab/v4/objects/projects.py 98.87% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
gitlab/v4/objects/status_checks.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

@ShaunMaxwell ShaunMaxwell mentioned this pull request Feb 6, 2025
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@nejch nejch nejch approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@SachinKSingh28 @nejch