Skip to content

feat: add initial implementation #1

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 16 commits into from
Aug 28, 2023
Merged

Conversation

mlopezFC
Copy link
Member

Also @flang and @javier-godoy are invited to take a look

@mlopezFC mlopezFC requested a review from paodb August 18, 2023 20:33
@mlopezFC mlopezFC requested a review from paodb August 22, 2023 18:06
@mlopezFC mlopezFC requested a review from javier-godoy August 24, 2023 23:11
Copy link
Member

@javier-godoy javier-godoy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(test) is not a scope

According to https://github.com/FlowingCode/DevelopmentConventions/blob/main/conventional-commits.md commits that contribute to a test are of type test:

test: Adding missing tests or refactoring/fixing existing tests

Updating webdrivermanager is either build or ci, depending on your interpretation of "exported artifact"

build: Changes to the build process or external dependencies affecting the exported artifacts (i.e. those artifacts that are created as a result of such process, and are utilized as final deliverables or included in other external projects). Correlates with a PATCH, MINOR or MAJOR increment in semantic versioning, depending on the nature of the change

ci: Changes to the CI configuration, and other changes to the build process or external dependencies with no impact in the exported artifacts (e.g.: configure code quality metrics, add dependencies that are only needed for running unit tests). Does not correlate with an increment in semantic versioning, because the versioned artifacts are not modified

Otherwise, LGTM

@mlopezFC mlopezFC force-pushed the initial-implementation branch from 98ace07 to 1696b70 Compare August 25, 2023 11:08
@mlopezFC mlopezFC requested a review from javier-godoy August 25, 2023 11:11
Copy link
Member

@paodb paodb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@javier-godoy javier-godoy merged commit feef7e0 into master Aug 28, 2023
@javier-godoy javier-godoy deleted the initial-implementation branch August 28, 2023 13:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants