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

fix: use require.NoError instead of t.Fatal(err) in contrib and tools packages #18752

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 18, 2024

Conversation

mmorel-35
Copy link
Contributor

There is no linter for this.
This uses testify instead of testing for
With

require.NoError(t, err)

require.Error(t, err)

instead of

if err != nil {
    t.Fatal(err)
}


if err == nil {
    t.Fatal(err)
}

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

Hi @mmorel-35. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a etcd-io member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@mmorel-35 mmorel-35 force-pushed the tools/testifier/require-error branch from c44d629 to 63dad79 Compare October 18, 2024 11:06
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Oct 18, 2024

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.73%. Comparing base (3d6ff97) to head (fa7efc9).

Current head fa7efc9 differs from pull request most recent head 63dad79

Please upload reports for the commit 63dad79 to get more accurate results.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

see 29 files with indirect coverage changes

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #18752      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.77%   68.73%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         420      420              
  Lines       35501    35501              
==========================================
- Hits        24416    24400      -16     
- Misses       9657     9670      +13     
- Partials     1428     1431       +3     

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3d6ff97...63dad79. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@ahrtr ahrtr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Note the we are going to remove raftexample once etcd-io/raft#2 is resovled.

@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Oct 18, 2024

/ok-to-test

Copy link
Member

@fuweid fuweid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahrtr, fuweid, mmorel-35

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@ahrtr ahrtr merged commit 3869f0e into etcd-io:main Oct 18, 2024
34 checks passed
@mmorel-35 mmorel-35 deleted the tools/testifier/require-error branch October 18, 2024 20:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants