Skip to content

Conversation

@skjnldsv
Copy link
Contributor

We were missing the dav service, a clone isn't really a clone otherwise.
Also removed unnecessary exposed data.

@skjnldsv skjnldsv requested a review from susnux October 30, 2025 10:45
@skjnldsv skjnldsv self-assigned this Oct 30, 2025
@skjnldsv skjnldsv added 3. to review 3️⃣ Waiting for reviews type: refactor ♻️ Refactor code (not a bug fix, not a feature just refactoring) labels Oct 30, 2025
@skjnldsv skjnldsv force-pushed the fix/clone branch 2 times, most recently from 6895904 to 4bf0659 Compare October 30, 2025 11:02
@skjnldsv skjnldsv requested a review from ShGKme October 30, 2025 11:06
susnux

This comment was marked as resolved.

@skjnldsv

This comment was marked as resolved.

@skjnldsv skjnldsv requested a review from susnux November 4, 2025 08:58
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 4, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 90.74%. Comparing base (550e782) to head (b552e14).
⚠️ Report is 41 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
lib/node/nodeData.ts 87.50% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1348      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.49%   90.74%   +0.25%     
==========================================
  Files          23       23              
  Lines         652      670      +18     
  Branches      176      182       +6     
==========================================
+ Hits          590      608      +18     
+ Misses         53       51       -2     
- Partials        9       11       +2     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@skjnldsv

This comment was marked as resolved.

susnux

This comment was marked as resolved.

@skjnldsv skjnldsv force-pushed the fix/clone branch 2 times, most recently from 44b01e3 to 9d40402 Compare November 18, 2025 09:51
@skjnldsv
Copy link
Contributor Author

Done @susnux I think we can merge now 👍

@skjnldsv skjnldsv added this to the v4.0.0 milestone Nov 18, 2025
@skjnldsv skjnldsv added the type: breaking 💥 changes that require a new major version label Nov 18, 2025
@skjnldsv
Copy link
Contributor Author

skjnldsv commented Nov 18, 2025

Fixing conflicts ⌛

EDIT: Done

@skjnldsv skjnldsv requested review from susnux and removed request for susnux November 25, 2025 16:26
@skjnldsv skjnldsv merged commit fd3a895 into main Nov 26, 2025
11 checks passed
@skjnldsv skjnldsv deleted the fix/clone branch November 26, 2025 09:53
@skjnldsv skjnldsv mentioned this pull request Nov 27, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

3. to review 3️⃣ Waiting for reviews type: breaking 💥 changes that require a new major version type: refactor ♻️ Refactor code (not a bug fix, not a feature just refactoring)

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants