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

drop expected output from common sql functions output #886

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 4, 2025

Conversation

mattseddon
Copy link
Member

follow up to #860

it seems weird that we would manually maintain a text copy of the expected output

@mattseddon mattseddon self-assigned this Feb 3, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 3, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.74%. Comparing base (7f757b3) to head (502f683).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #886   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.74%   87.74%           
=======================================
  Files         129      129           
  Lines       11462    11462           
  Branches     1545     1545           
=======================================
  Hits        10057    10057           
  Misses       1017     1017           
  Partials      388      388           
Flag Coverage Δ
datachain 87.66% <ø> (ø)

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.

@mattseddon mattseddon marked this pull request as ready for review February 3, 2025 04:02
@mattseddon mattseddon requested a review from a team February 3, 2025 04:02
@dreadatour
Copy link
Contributor

it seems weird that we would manually maintain a text copy of the expected output

🤔 Not really agree tbh.

It was useful to include this output in the example so people can see what’s happening without running the code. This is common practice.

The same applies to Jupyter Notebooks — we have them "baked" in https://github.com/iterative/datachain-examples. In case of any backward-incompatible changes in the Datachain repo, we need to re-run the corresponding example to generate the new output.

@mattseddon
Copy link
Member Author

it seems weird that we would manually maintain a text copy of the expected output

🤔 Not really agree tbh.

It was useful to include this output in the example so people can see what’s happening without running the code. This is common practice.

The same applies to Jupyter Notebooks — we have them "baked" in https://github.com/iterative/datachain-examples. In case of any backward-incompatible changes in the Datachain repo, we need to re-run the corresponding example to generate the new output.

This isn't an option with Jupyter Notebooks and the process for keeping them updated is more straightforward than remembering to run and then copy/pasting the output into the same file.

Copy link

cloudflare-workers-and-pages bot commented Feb 3, 2025

Deploying datachain-documentation with  Cloudflare Pages  Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit: 502f683
Status: ✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL: https://49c3b187.datachain-documentation.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL: https://drop-expected-str.datachain-documentation.pages.dev

View logs

@mattseddon mattseddon merged commit b64aaa9 into main Feb 4, 2025
37 checks passed
@mattseddon mattseddon deleted the drop-expected-str branch February 4, 2025 21:34
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.

2 participants