@gmlewis could you please approve actions test to see if all works correctly?

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.03%. Comparing base (d392e2c) to head (927eeeb).
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3459   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.03%   91.03%           
=======================================
  Files         179      179           
  Lines       15535    15535           
=======================================
  Hits        14142    14142           
  Misses       1221     1221           
  Partials      172      172           

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

@gmlewis could you please approve actions test to see if all works correctly?

Yes, however we don't want to remove problematic (but valid) branch names from the unit tests (as you have done in this PR)...
Instead, we want to fix the testing mux harness to properly handle all the problematic branch names.
Does that make sense?

Yes, however we don't want to remove problematic (but valid) branch names from the unit tests (as you have done in this PR)... Instead, we want to fix the testing mux harness to properly handle all the problematic branch names. Does that make sense?

I am not sure if I get what you're saying, I haven't really removed any branch names, instead in the mux urls(the one's to be called) by api, I have just Path escaped them, github also does this, for eg,

This would go like this:

https://github.com/flutter/engine/compare/commit-list?range=main...shorebirdtech%3Aengine%3Ashorebird%2Fdev

Also see, tests in net/http.

IMO, one thing that could be done better here is,to create a util function of sort that would take the branch name and path escape them before adding it to mux route.

I am not sure if I get what you're saying, I haven't really removed any branch names, instead in the mux urls(the one's to be called) by api, I have just Path escaped them

Ah! I see now what you are saying, @amanv8060. I apologize for the confusion I caused.

Yes, a utility function would help tremendously, I would think, and make it clearer what is happening.

Would you mind doing that as part of this PR?

I would prefer to do that in seperate pr so that review becomes easier.

Thank you, @stevehipwell and @alexandear !
Merging.