Skip to content

Conversation

@Oakchris1955
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Update Cargo.lock

Motivation and Context

When I updated git cliff with cargo update --locked, cargo warned me about a yanked version of a dependency of a dependency. Thus, I run cargo update and crated a commit with all the changes

How Has This Been Tested?

All tests passed on my local run except repo::test::get_latest_tag, repo::test::git_tags and repo::test::resolves_existing_tag_with_name_and_message, which I suspect failed because it was a local run

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 (update lockfile

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.

@Oakchris1955 Oakchris1955 requested a review from orhun as a code owner September 14, 2025 12:30
@welcome
Copy link

welcome bot commented Sep 14, 2025

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

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 43.43%. Comparing base (9857d86) to head (7f4821a).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1253      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   43.65%   43.43%   -0.21%     
==========================================
  Files          22       22              
  Lines        1982     1978       -4     
==========================================
- Hits          865      859       -6     
- Misses       1117     1119       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ
unit-tests 43.43% <ø> (-0.21%) ⬇️

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@ognis1205 ognis1205 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

All tests passed on my local run except repo::test::get_latest_tag, repo::test::git_tags and repo::test::resolves_existing_tag_with_name_and_message, which I suspect failed because it was a local run

For verifying tests locally, you can follow the instructions in the Contributing Guide.

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.

gut

@orhun orhun merged commit a48db3c into orhun:main Sep 17, 2025
91 checks passed
@welcome
Copy link

welcome bot commented Sep 17, 2025

Congrats on merging your first pull request! ⛰️

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.

4 participants