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(#2758): set exact-o3r-version as default for all schematics if provided when adding @o3r/core #2769

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: release/11.6
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

@matthieu-crouzet matthieu-crouzet requested a review from a team as a code owner January 30, 2025 15:48
fpaul-1A
fpaul-1A previously approved these changes Jan 30, 2025
Copy link

nx-cloud bot commented Jan 30, 2025

View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit 6999941.

Command Status Duration Result
nx run-many --target=test-e2e ❌ Failed 2m 12s View ↗
nx run-many --target=test-int ✅ Succeeded 55m 33s View ↗
nx run-many --target=build --projects=eslint-pl... ✅ Succeeded <1s View ↗
nx run-many --target=publish --nx-bail --userco... ✅ Succeeded 36s View ↗
nx run-many --target=build ✅ Succeeded 14m 54s View ↗
nx affected --target=lint --base=remotes/origin... ✅ Succeeded 2m 18s View ↗
nx affected --base=remotes/origin/release/11.6 ... ✅ Succeeded 1m 57s View ↗
nx affected --target=test --cacheDirectory=D:\a... ✅ Succeeded 16s View ↗
Additional runs (3) ✅ Succeeded ... View ↗

☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at 2025-02-07 09:21:48 UTC

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 30, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 66.55%. Comparing base (846b514) to head (6999941).
Report is 2 commits behind head on release/11.6.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

fpaul-1A
fpaul-1A previously approved these changes Jan 31, 2025
kpanot
kpanot previously approved these changes Jan 31, 2025
@@ -94,6 +94,33 @@ FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS
IN THE SOFTWARE.

@o3r/new-version
Copyright Amadeus SAS
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should this be removed from the PR ?

mrednic-1A
mrednic-1A previously approved these changes Jan 31, 2025
@matthieu-crouzet matthieu-crouzet dismissed stale reviews from mrednic-1A, kpanot, and fpaul-1A via 5c3b77c January 31, 2025 09:44
@matthieu-crouzet matthieu-crouzet force-pushed the fix/2758 branch 3 times, most recently from 15d4baf to 9de0ac9 Compare February 4, 2025 15:58
@matthieu-crouzet matthieu-crouzet changed the base branch from release/11.5 to release/11.6 February 4, 2025 15:58
@github-actions github-actions bot added breaking change This issue or pull request introduces a breaking change deprecate The issue or pull request involves code deprecation documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request project:@ama-sdk/client-angular project:@ama-sdk/client-beacon project:@ama-sdk/client-fetch labels Feb 4, 2025
cpaulve-1A
cpaulve-1A previously approved these changes Feb 6, 2025
Comment on lines +28 to +33
const schematicOptionsWithoutUndefined = Object.entries(options).reduce((acc: Record<string, any>, [key, value]) => {
if (typeof value !== 'undefined') {
acc[key] = value;
}
return acc;
}, {}) as S;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
const schematicOptionsWithoutUndefined = Object.entries(options).reduce((acc: Record<string, any>, [key, value]) => {
if (typeof value !== 'undefined') {
acc[key] = value;
}
return acc;
}, {}) as S;
const schematicOptionsWithoutUndefined = Object.fromEntries(
Object.entries(options)
.filter(([, value]) => typeof value !== 'undefined')
) as S;

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We discussed it in the team and half of them preferred the .reduce() because we are not used to Object.fromEntries()

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants