Skip to content
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

Closes #6819 modify logic check #6822

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 1, 2024
Merged

Conversation

Khadreal
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Modify the logic check for rucss
Fixes #6819

Documentation

User documentation

Modify the logic check to make sure the filter rocket_min_rucss_size is working as it should.

Technical documentation

Explain how this code works. Diagram & drawings are welcomed.

Type of change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).

New dependencies

List any new dependencies that are required for this change.

Risks

List possible performance & security issues or risks, and explain how they have been mitigated.

Checklists

Feature validation

  • I validated all the Acceptance Criteria. If possible, provide sreenshots or videos.
  • I triggered all changed lines of code at least once without new errors/warnings/notices.
  • I implemented built-in tests to cover the new/changed code.

Documentation

  • I prepared the user documentation for the feature/enhancement and shared it in the PR or the GitHub issue.
  • The user documentation covers new/changed entry points (endpoints, WP hooks, configuration files, ...).
  • I prepared the technical documentation if needed, and shared it in the PR or the GitHub issue.

Code style

  • I did not introduce unecessary complexity.

Observability

  • I handled errors when needed.
  •  I wrote user-facing messages that are understandable and provide actionable feedbacks.
  • I prepared ways to observe the implemented system (logs, data, etc.).

Risks

  •  I explicitely mentioned performance risks in the PR.
  • I explicitely mentioned security risks in the PR.

@Khadreal Khadreal added the type: bug Indicates an unexpected problem or unintended behavior label Jul 29, 2024
@Khadreal Khadreal self-assigned this Jul 29, 2024
Copy link

codacy-production bot commented Jul 29, 2024

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
+0.03% (target: -0.10%) 100.00% (target: 50.00%)
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (905d862) 37343 14541 38.94%
Head commit (6645734) 37343 (+0) 14553 (+12) 38.97% (+0.03%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#6822) 1 1 100.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences


🚀 Don’t miss a bit, follow what’s new on Codacy.

Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more

@Khadreal Khadreal marked this pull request as ready for review July 29, 2024 11:28
@Khadreal Khadreal requested a review from a team July 29, 2024 11:28
@MathieuLamiot
Copy link
Contributor

@Khadreal Can you complete the PR checklist? In particular:

  • Can we have tests for this to ensure the issue is properly covered with tests and can't happen again?
  • Have you validated the ACs?

I am moving this back to in-progress in the meantime.

Thanks

@Khadreal
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Khadreal Can you complete the PR checklist? In particular:

  • Can we have tests for this to ensure the issue is properly covered with tests and can't happen again?
  • Have you validated the ACs?

I am moving this back to in-progress in the meantime.

Thanks

Yes, the ACs are validated.
I'll add more tests to what we currently have.

Copy link
Contributor

@Mai-Saad Mai-Saad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Working as expected

  • When no filter set
  • filter set to large value
  • filter set to medium value

@Mai-Saad Mai-Saad added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 1, 2024
Merged via the queue into develop with commit c7594c5 Aug 1, 2024
14 checks passed
@Mai-Saad Mai-Saad deleted the bug/rucss-validation#6819 branch August 1, 2024 10:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: bug Indicates an unexpected problem or unintended behavior
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

RUCSS file size validation might be unreachable
4 participants