-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
ProjectOptions (public to private) & Project struct (org related fields) fixes #2111
Conversation
We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for all the commit author(s) or Co-authors. If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google. ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
@googlebot I fixed it. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2111 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 97.77% 97.77%
=======================================
Files 111 111
Lines 9934 9934
=======================================
Hits 9713 9713
Misses 154 154
Partials 67 67
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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.
Thank you, @DariuszPorowski !
LGTM.
Awaiting second LGTM before merging.
This is technically a Breaking API change... however, I'm tempted to declare this one as non-breaking simply because what we are changing was already broken... so in theory, any attempts to use the prior version would have failed.
Thoughts? Is it OK to NOT declare this PR as a breaking APi change (and therefore not have to bump the major version number of this repo at the next release due to this PR alone)?
@willnorris - what is your opinion?
Even though this was never working as intended, it's a breaking change in the Go API in that if anyone was calling it, their code would no longer compile now. And since it's been in the wild for 3 years, I feel like it would be more responsible to treat it as a breaking change. |
@gmlewis I agree with @willnorris |
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.
lgtm
we need to document that in the release notes
Thank you, @cpanato - merging. |
This fixes #2110
I've done UATs as well, and all API calls looked good: