Codecov Report

Merging #756 (f6f7616) into main (5c1172c) will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head f6f7616 differs from pull request most recent head 8631af0. Consider uploading reports for the commit 8631af0 to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #756      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     97.40%   97.44%   +0.04%     
- Complexity      162      166       +4     
============================================
  Files            30       30              
  Lines           693      705      +12     
============================================
+ Hits            675      687      +12     
  Misses           18       18              

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@localheinz is there anything I can do to help get this merged in? I'm happy to split this into individual pull requests if you'd prefer to evaluate each item separately.

@fredden

Apologies for the delay, I am slowly catching up with open issues in the @ergebnis organization!

I've resolved the merge conflict with a merge commit. Please let me know if you'd prefer a re-base.

@fredden

Since I made a bunch of changes in main, and do not want to put more burden on you, I will be happy to take over your pull request - is that ok with you?

Yes, that's fine with me. I'm happy to update this pull request, but probably won't have capacity to do so for a few days at least.

@localheinz I've merged in the changes from main and fixed the tests to expect the new behaviour. However the mutation score index has gone down a lot and is now below the threshold. (It wasn't before.) I suspect this means we need more tests, but the the new test fixtures format / layout is so different now. Please can you have a look at this aspect?

Also, I noticed that the sentences used for version constraints are now all messed up. I decided to leave this as-is, as these are nonsense version constraints, so having nonsense come out seems fine to me. For example,

@fredden

I like this change, but I am going to prepare a release for 4.0.0 without this improvement - we can follow up!

Next, we need decisions made about the remaining suggestions:

• Prefer wildcard (1.2.*) or tilde operator (~1.2.0) when equivalent, or leave as-is.

• Prefer caret (^2.4) or tilde (~2.4) operator when equivalent, or leave as-is.

• Assert min/max number of 'parts' when equivalent (^1, ^1.0, ^1.0.0), or leave as-is.

Since it might be subject to debate, what about using configuration for this ?

Something like "preferred operator" or "min part number" ?

@localheinz this pull request came up in discussion with a colleague today. Is there anything I can do to help progress this?

@fredden

I am removing the adjustments for parts (for now), because I am a bit unsure whether people will like it or not.

I certainly would, but I am in favour of three instead of two parts, so major.minor.patch instead of major.minor.

Thank you, @fredden!

Thanks very much for considering these features. I've seen benefit from those that were released as part of v4.0.0 already, and I look forward to those that have been released now too. I'll leave the idea about min/max 'parts' with you; let me know if you'd like me to open a pull request for that feature.

Thank you very much, @fredden - I still have a backup of your branch, so I will open a pull request soon!