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

pod lint in verbose mode #1698

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 16, 2022
Merged

pod lint in verbose mode #1698

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 16, 2022

Conversation

bruno-garcia
Copy link
Member

@bruno-garcia bruno-garcia commented Mar 15, 2022

To help debug failures in CI

#skip-changelog

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 15, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #1698 (9e91320) into master (48e6807) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1698   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.70%   94.70%           
=======================================
  Files         162      162           
  Lines        7442     7442           
=======================================
  Hits         7048     7048           
  Misses        394      394           

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 48e6807...9e91320. Read the comment docs.

@bruno-garcia
Copy link
Member Author

@indragiek looked at the output and seems like it's pretty noisy. So we might not want to merge this in after all.

Copy link
Member

@philipphofmann philipphofmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Totally makes sense thanks 🙏 💯

@philipphofmann philipphofmann merged commit 07d46d8 into master Mar 16, 2022
@philipphofmann philipphofmann deleted the chore/pod-lint-verbose branch March 16, 2022 07:33
@philipphofmann
Copy link
Member

@indragiek looked at the output and seems like it's pretty noisy. So we might not want to merge this in after all.

Ups, feel free to open another PR.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants