-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 569
🌱 implement GetPackage for depsdev client #4697
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
a122f44
to
6b01511
Compare
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4697 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 66.80% 68.24% +1.43%
==========================================
Files 230 249 +19
Lines 16602 18933 +2331
==========================================
+ Hits 11091 12920 +1829
- Misses 4808 5148 +340
- Partials 703 865 +162 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
This pull request has been marked stale because it has been open for 10 days with no activity |
This pull request has been marked stale because it has been open for 10 days with no activity |
This pull request has been marked stale because it has been open for 10 days with no activity |
This pull request has been marked stale because it has been open for 10 days with no activity |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
This implements GetPackage for the Deps.dev client. GetPackage has data about when each version of a package was published which is necessary for #2458 and #2458 (comment).
The PR also restructures the existing structs a bit to reuse parts of them.
More info about GetPackage here.
(Is it a bug fix, feature, docs update, something else?)
feature
What is the current behavior?
The Deps.dev client cannot retrieve info about when packages have been published.
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?**
The Deps.dev client can retrieve info about when packages have been published.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes
This is ongoing work for: #2458
Special notes for your reviewer
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?