Skip to content

[storage]Generate mocks for dependency writer of v2 #6576

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jan 21, 2025
Merged

[storage]Generate mocks for dependency writer of v2 #6576

merged 8 commits into from
Jan 21, 2025

Conversation

Manik2708
Copy link
Contributor

Which problem is this PR solving?

A minor fix related to #6559

Description of the changes

  • On addition of dependency writer in storage v2, mocks generation was left which is generating mocks when make generate mocks is ran on main branch which can cause unnecessary noise in a PR which is adding mocks

How was this change tested?

  • unit tests

Checklist

@Manik2708
[storage]Generate mocks for dependency writer of v2
cc99edc 
Signed-off-by: Manik2708 <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>
@Manik2708 Manik2708 requested a review from a team as a code owner January 20, 2025 19:22
@Manik2708 Manik2708 requested a review from jkowall January 20, 2025 19:22
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.23%. Comparing base (976a36e) to head (74cf034).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6576      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.24%   96.23%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         373      373              
  Lines       21389    21389              
==========================================
- Hits        20585    20583       -2     
- Misses        612      614       +2     
  Partials      192      192
Flag Coverage Δ
badger_v1 10.65% <ø> (ø)
badger_v2 2.78% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v1-manual 16.61% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v2-auto 2.71% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v2-manual 2.71% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v1-manual 16.61% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v2-auto 2.71% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v2-manual 2.71% <ø> (ø)
elasticsearch-6.x-v1 20.39% <ø> (ø)
elasticsearch-7.x-v1 20.47% <ø> (ø)
elasticsearch-8.x-v1 20.63% <ø> (ø)
elasticsearch-8.x-v2 2.77% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
grpc_v1 12.18% <ø> (ø)
grpc_v2 9.03% <ø> (ø)
kafka-3.x-v1 10.34% <ø> (ø)
kafka-3.x-v2 2.78% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
memory_v2 2.77% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
opensearch-1.x-v1 20.51% <ø> (ø)
opensearch-2.x-v1 20.52% <ø> (ø)
opensearch-2.x-v2 2.77% <ø> (ø)
tailsampling-processor 0.51% <ø> (ø)
unittests 95.08% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️

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.

@yurishkuro
Copy link
Member

This is concerning - we specifically have a linter step for this

    - name: Verify Mockery types are up to date
      run: make generate-mocks && git diff --name-status --exit-code

Apparently the git diff does not fail if an untracked file is produced. We may need to combine it with something like git status --porcelain | grep '??' - can you find the exact condition that will fail on either real diffs or on untracked files and include in this PR?

@Manik2708
linter check
db3d64e 
Signed-off-by: Manik2708 <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>
@Manik2708
add mocks
02d0a5a 
Signed-off-by: Manik2708 <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>
@Manik2708
linter check
2efe9ce 
Signed-off-by: Manik2708 <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>
@Manik2708
linter check
c3b8c0d 
Signed-off-by: Manik2708 <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>
@Manik2708
linter check
cd13601 
Signed-off-by: Manik2708 <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>
@Manik2708
linter fix
25f9880 
Signed-off-by: Manik2708 <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>
@Manik2708
Merge branch 'main' into v2storageminor
74cf034
@Manik2708
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yurishkuro Have added the necessary check, please review!

yurishkuro
yurishkuro approved these changes Jan 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@yurishkuro yurishkuro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks

@yurishkuro yurishkuro merged commit 4fbffc9 into jaegertracing:main Jan 21, 2025
55 of 56 checks passed
@Manik2708 Manik2708 deleted the v2storageminor branch January 21, 2025 21:14
@yurishkuro yurishkuro mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2025
Merged
4 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@yurishkuro yurishkuro yurishkuro approved these changes

@jkowall jkowall Awaiting requested review from jkowall jkowall is a code owner automatically assigned from jaegertracing/jaeger-maintainers

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/storage changelog:bugfix-or-minor-feature v2
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@Manik2708 @yurishkuro