8000 Fix bad openapi.yaml merge by kathy-t · Pull Request #6079 · dockstore/dockstore · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Fix bad openapi.yaml merge #6079

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 1 commit into from
Feb 14, 2025
Merged

Fix bad openapi.yaml merge #6079

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 14, 2025

Conversation

kathy-t
Copy link
Contributor
@kathy-t kathy-t commented Feb 13, 2025

Description
This PR fixes the build that was broken from merging the 1.16.6 hotfix into develop. The openapi.yaml had duplicate TOIL enums.

Review Instructions
develop builds should pass

Issue
n/a

Security and Privacy

If there are any concerns that require extra attention from the security team, highlight them here and check the box when complete.

  • Security and Privacy assessed

e.g. Does this change...

  • Any user data we collect, or data location?
  • Access control, authentication or authorization?
  • Encryption features?

Please make sure that you've checked the following before submitting your pull request. Thanks!

  • Check that you pass the basic style checks and unit tests by running mvn clean install
  • Ensure that the PR targets the correct branch. Check the milestone or fix version of the ticket.
  • Follow the existing JPA patterns for queries, using named parameters, to avoid SQL injection
  • If you are changing dependencies, check the Snyk status check or the dashboard to ensure you are not introducing new high/critical vulnerabilities
  • Assume that inputs to the API can be malicious, and sanitize and/or check for Denial of Service type values, e.g., massive sizes
  • Do not serve user-uploaded binary images through the Dockstore API
  • Ensure that endpoints that only allow privileged access enforce that with the @RolesAllowed annotation
  • Do not create cookies, although this may change in the future
  • If this PR is for a user-facing feature, create and link a documentation ticket for this feature (usually in the same milestone as the linked issue). Style points if you create a documentation PR directly and link that instead.

@kathy-t kathy-t self-assigned this Feb 13, 2025
@kathy-t kathy-t requested review from hyunnaye and svonworl February 13, 2025 21:41
Copy link
codecov bot commented Feb 13, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.41%. Comparing base (0041c23) to head (c974a64).
Report is 35 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop    #6079      +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage      73.56%   74.41%   +0.85%     
- Complexity      5434     5639     +205     
=============================================
  Files            381      386       +5     
  Lines          19805    20206     +401     
  Branches        2046     2088      +42     
=============================================
+ Hits           14570    15037     +467     
+ Misses          4212     4170      -42     
+ Partials        1023      999      -24     
Flag Coverage Δ
bitbuckettests 26.17% <ø> (-0.48%) ⬇️
hoverflytests 27.63% <ø> (-0.31%) ⬇️
integrationtests 55.94% <ø> (-0.82%) ⬇️
languageparsingtests 10.86% <ø> (-0.19%) ⬇️
localstacktests 21.28% <ø> (-0.28%) ⬇️
toolintegrationtests 29.91% <ø> (-0.11%) ⬇️
unit-tests_and_non-confidential-tests 26.41% <ø> (+11.11%) ⬆️
workflowintegrationtests 37.58% <ø> (-0.47%) ⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link

Copy link
Contributor
@svonworl svonworl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks Kathy! Now, please permit me to prosthelytize regarding our big hotfix merges: IMHO, they are one of the most likely points in our process where defects might be introduced, and some may be hard to detect (unlike this one). That's one of the reasons why I lobby for keeping as much development as possible out of hotfixes and on develop.

@kathy-t kathy-t merged commit 03f8ca5 into develop Feb 14, 2025
20 checks passed
@kathy-t kathy-t deleted the feature/fix-bad-merge branch February 14, 2025 21:16
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
0