Skip to content

Conversation

hemachandarv
Copy link
Contributor

Resolves #625

@google-cla google-cla bot added the cla: yes Indication that the PR author has signed a Google Contributor License Agreement. label Sep 13, 2021
@hemachandarv
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gmlewis I've addressed #625 by returning an explicit error in the GET APIs. Do you think this is a good idea?

Also, do you think we should cover the same for the POST APIs too?

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 13, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #2092 (0035635) into master (88b13f9) will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2092      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.75%   97.78%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         107      109       +2     
  Lines        9601     9733     +132     
==========================================
+ Hits         9385     9517     +132     
  Misses        150      150              
  Partials       66       66              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
github/repos.go 98.66% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
github/event.go 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
github/messages.go 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
github/actions_runner_groups.go 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
github/actions_workflow_runs.go 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
github/orgs_hooks_deliveries.go 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
github/repos_community_health.go 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
github/repos_autolinks.go 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
github/scim.go 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
github/github.go 97.58% <0.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 88b13f9...0035635. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Collaborator

@gmlewis gmlewis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you, @hemachandarv !
Just a few minor tweaks, please.


w.WriteHeader(http.StatusBadRequest)
fmt.Fprintf(w, `{
"message": "Branch not protected",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"message": "Branch not protected",
"message": githubBranchNotProtected,

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@gmlewis I'm not sure if we'll be able to use a variable inside a raw string. Am I missing something..?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Whups, you are correct. Please use %v and the variable name in that case.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually, %q makes more sense here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @gmlewis. I've updated the PR with the suggested changes.


w.WriteHeader(http.StatusBadRequest)
fmt.Fprintf(w, `{
"message": "Branch not protected",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"message": "Branch not protected",
"message": githubBranchNotProtected,


w.WriteHeader(http.StatusBadRequest)
fmt.Fprintf(w, `{
"message": "Branch not protected",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"message": "Branch not protected",
"message": githubBranchNotProtected,

github/repos.go Outdated
Comment on lines 1560 to 1563
if errorResponse, ok := err.(*ErrorResponse); ok {
return errorResponse.Message == githubBranchNotProtected
}
return false
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
if errorResponse, ok := err.(*ErrorResponse); ok {
return errorResponse.Message == githubBranchNotProtected
}
return false
errorResponse, ok := err.(*ErrorResponse)
return ok && errorResponse.Message == githubBranchNotProtected

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@gmlewis Thank you for suggesting this change. I certainly missed this simplification.

@gmlewis gmlewis requested a review from wesleimp September 13, 2021 12:01
Copy link
Collaborator

@gmlewis gmlewis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you, @hemachandarv !
LGTM.

Awaiting second LGTM before merging.

Copy link
Contributor

@cpanato cpanato left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM
thanks!

@gmlewis
Copy link
Collaborator

gmlewis commented Dec 3, 2021

Thank you, @cpanato !
Merging.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cla: yes Indication that the PR author has signed a Google Contributor License Agreement.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Branch protection status checks returns error for unprotected branches
3 participants