Skip to content

Conversation

@AVaksman
Copy link
Contributor

@AVaksman AVaksman commented Oct 3, 2019

  • Ensure the tests and linter pass
  • Code coverage does not decrease (if any source code was changed)
  • Appropriate docs were updated (if necessary)

Currently if user passes same bucket object, fileobject, or fileName string as the original file, the client will attempt to "copy" (essentially leaving the file in place) and subsequently delete the origin/destination file.

@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement. label Oct 3, 2019
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 3, 2019

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@09b8fa4). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master     #874   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   95.29%           
=========================================
  Files             ?       11           
  Lines             ?     1212           
  Branches          ?      303           
=========================================
  Hits              ?     1155           
  Misses            ?       29           
  Partials          ?       28
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/file.ts 98.18% <100%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 09b8fa4...50c58bb. Read the comment docs.

@jkwlui
Copy link
Member

jkwlui commented Oct 3, 2019

Sounds like what we really should do here is to error out when the user tries to copy/move to the same destination, unless I'm missing something here?

@AVaksman
Copy link
Contributor Author

AVaksman commented Oct 4, 2019

IMHO I am not sure passing same destination on copy/move deserves an error (would be a breaking change). WDYT?

@jkwlui
Copy link
Member

jkwlui commented Oct 4, 2019

Yeah I would try to avoid a breaking change here as well. The draft looks good, promote it to a PR?

@AVaksman AVaksman marked this pull request as ready for review October 7, 2019 04:28
@AVaksman AVaksman added the kokoro:force-run Add this label to force Kokoro to re-run the tests. label Oct 7, 2019
@kokoro-team kokoro-team removed the kokoro:force-run Add this label to force Kokoro to re-run the tests. label Oct 7, 2019
@AVaksman AVaksman added the kokoro:force-run Add this label to force Kokoro to re-run the tests. label Oct 7, 2019
@kokoro-team kokoro-team removed the kokoro:force-run Add this label to force Kokoro to re-run the tests. label Oct 7, 2019
@AVaksman AVaksman added the kokoro:force-run Add this label to force Kokoro to re-run the tests. label Oct 7, 2019
@kokoro-team kokoro-team removed the kokoro:force-run Add this label to force Kokoro to re-run the tests. label Oct 7, 2019
@jkwlui jkwlui added the automerge Merge the pull request once unit tests and other checks pass. label Oct 7, 2019
@jkwlui jkwlui merged commit dcaba8a into googleapis:master Oct 8, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

automerge Merge the pull request once unit tests and other checks pass. cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants