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

Not getting type of change in new version 7.5.0 #76

Closed
VishalMathimaran opened this issue Dec 13, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #77
Closed

Not getting type of change in new version 7.5.0 #76

VishalMathimaran opened this issue Dec 13, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #77
Labels

Comments

@VishalMathimaran
Copy link

Not getting type of change option during commit from newer version. Is there a new flag for enabling this?
Screenshot -> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TpF4flxAhVagIrQyodH9Jq88UyPJjBMX/view?usp=sharing

@juliuscc
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi! That looks like a bug to me. I think it's because of this line.

@s-hoff could you please submit a fix in a new PR?

s-hoff added a commit to s-hoff/cz-conventional-changelog-for-jira that referenced this issue Dec 13, 2022
@s-hoff
Copy link

s-hoff commented Dec 13, 2022

Done, I must have somehow missed that.

Maybe its worth also covering this in the tests? Moving that into a function which would be used to build the options in the existing tests would mean they all cover regressions from introducing new options.

@juliuscc
Copy link
Collaborator

Maybe its worth also covering this in the tests? Moving that into a function which would be used to build the options in the existing tests would mean they all cover regressions from introducing new options.

Yeah that makes sense! I agree. I wonder how though 🤔 It's easy to risk just creating tests that work exactly the same as the business logic.

juliuscc pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 13, 2022

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature. The key has expired.
closes #76
@github-actions
Copy link

🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 7.5.1 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

@s-hoff
Copy link

s-hoff commented Dec 14, 2022

Maybe its worth also covering this in the tests? Moving that into a function which would be used to build the options in the existing tests would mean they all cover regressions from introducing new options.

Yeah that makes sense! I agree. I wonder how though 🤔 It's easy to risk just creating tests that work exactly the same as the business logic.

Thats the Idea behind not making new test cases that go after the options in isolation but rather using the same function to get them for the existing engine tests as well. That way, anything here that influences the existing functionality will break them. In a way they would become more of an integration then unit test suite, which is fine given that they still run just as fast and should not loose much precision for funsing the causes.

If its just the options function I agree, it won’t help especially when adding new options.

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants