Skip to content

Conversation

@wetneb
Copy link
Contributor

@wetneb wetneb commented Jun 4, 2025

The text says that the extra information is added in a gitea nested object, but it's in fact a remote object according to the examples.

Description

Motivation and Context

How Has This Been Tested?

Screenshots / Logs (if applicable)

Types of Changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation (no code change)
  • Refactor (refactoring production code)
  • Other

Checklist:

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have formatted the code with rustfmt.
  • I checked the lints with clippy.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.

The text says that the extra information is added in a `gitea` nested object, but it's in fact a `remote` object according to the examples.
@wetneb wetneb requested a review from orhun as a code owner June 4, 2025 12:31
@welcome
Copy link

welcome bot commented Jun 4, 2025

Thanks for opening this pull request! Please check out our contributing guidelines! ⛰️

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jun 4, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 42.00%. Comparing base (68bd85e) to head (81e20ec).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1165      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   41.95%   42.00%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          21       21              
  Lines        1981     1981              
==========================================
+ Hits          831      832       +1     
+ Misses       1150     1149       -1     
Flag Coverage Δ
unit-tests 42.00% <ø> (+0.06%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@orhun
Copy link
Owner

orhun commented Jun 4, 2025

They are actually added as both, e.g. for GitHub:

        "github": {
          "username": "LitoMore",
          "pr_title": "docs(readme): fix twitter badge",
          "pr_number": 1164,
          "pr_labels": [],
          "is_first_time": false
        },
        "remote": {
          "username": "LitoMore",
          "pr_title": "docs(readme): fix twitter badge",
          "pr_number": 1164,
          "pr_labels": [],
          "is_first_time": false
        },

For context, the remote was added in #822

So in this case we should probably expand the docs to say something like "remote or gitea", what do you think?

@wetneb
Copy link
Contributor Author

wetneb commented Jun 4, 2025

Hmm, yeah then I don't know how to formulate in a way that's not confusing… if you write "gitea or remote" then as a reader I think I would ask myself "how do I know which?"… Is there a preferred one that should be used to access this information? I would recommend just documenting that and ignoring the other.

@orhun
Copy link
Owner

orhun commented Jun 4, 2025

Makes sense. Then we need to change this to remote in all of the other docs (GitHub, GitLab, etc.) as well.

Copy link
Owner

@orhun orhun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@orhun orhun merged commit deb29dc into orhun:main Jun 10, 2025
84 checks passed
@welcome
Copy link

welcome bot commented Jun 10, 2025

Congrats on merging your first pull request! ⛰️

Cyclonit pushed a commit to Cyclonit/git-cliff that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2025
…rhun#1165)

* Fix inconsistency in documentation of Gitea integration

The text says that the extra information is added in a `gitea` nested object, but it's in fact a `remote` object according to the examples.

* Do the same for other forges
Cyclonit pushed a commit to Cyclonit/git-cliff that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2025
…rhun#1165)

* Fix inconsistency in documentation of Gitea integration

The text says that the extra information is added in a `gitea` nested object, but it's in fact a `remote` object according to the examples.

* Do the same for other forges
Cyclonit pushed a commit to Cyclonit/git-cliff that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2025
…rhun#1165)

* Fix inconsistency in documentation of Gitea integration

The text says that the extra information is added in a `gitea` nested object, but it's in fact a `remote` object according to the examples.

* Do the same for other forges
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants