(Closes #3506) added fparser ref detection to util script + cleanup - #3561
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3561 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 397 397
Lines 55775 55775
=========================================
Hits 55775 55775 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
sergisiso
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @haanahfrost for addressing the last reported issues:
-
I agree with the fix to 111.
-
The remaining 753 should be replaced with 1618
-
For fparser 174, 295 and 469, I would prefer if you restored the previous version of
utils/check_closed_issue_refs.pyand instead replaced the references to fparser issues with full urls. For example instead offparser #295, usehttps://github.com/stfc/fparser/issues/295
sergisiso
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All good now, thanks @haanahfrost
This PR extends the manual reference checker in the utils folder
check_closed_issue_refs.py(follow up from #3556) to catch references to closed issues in the fparser directory.Now after running the audit these are the final issues which need cleaning up:
Needs removal:
Needs changes:
# fparser2 (issue #295)so the regex does not catch this as an fparser issue. Instead of changing the regex (which would be risky and may lead to false positives), would it be better to change the comment format to#TODO fparser #295and standardise these practices when adding todos in the future?Accepted formats:
fparser #295fparser#295fparser/#295fparser issue #295