-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 221
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
chore: bump version to 0.11 to reflect breaking changes #2332
Conversation
It looks like I notice it only seems to be looking at the minor/patch versions when looking at the latest release:
However, when looking at the current code it seems to be using major/minor/patch. Is this correct or am I missing something?
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2332 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 80.64% 80.66% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 192 192
Lines 56684 56684
Branches 56684 56684
==========================================
+ Hits 45713 45725 +12
+ Misses 8404 8394 -10
+ Partials 2567 2565 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
The |
This is very weird. Maybe |
Ah, in my brain I was thinking it was already split at this point. You're right that chopping off the |
…is pulling the wrong PR to check for latest version otherwise
@wjones127 because the action was run as Since the PR doesn't need access to any secrets I went ahead and changed it to However, another way we could fix this is to change the action to specify the SHA to checkout manually: actions/checkout#518 (comment) This should be safe since we aren't actually executing any code in the checked out repo, only looking at the version files. Let me know if you have a preference for one approach over the other. |
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.
pull_request
sounds good to me. Thanks for figuring the out.
33d576f introduced a breaking change but did not bump the minor version. This PR only bumps the minor version.
Earlier in #2332 (comment) we switched to `pull_request` events to checkout the correct PR. However, in those actions, GHA doesn't have permissions to label PRs, so that change broke the labeler job. This switches back of `pull_request_target`, but adds code to checkout the correct branch when checking for breaking changes.
33d576f introduced a breaking change but did not bump the minor version. This PR only bumps the minor version.