Skip to content
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

fix(examples): add missing newline #253

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 24, 2023

Conversation

alexfertel
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Add a missing newline to the Scoped (Sorted) example.

Motivation and Context

I use git-cliff for generating the changelog of bulloak. Before the change in this PR, I would get the following:

- *(README)* Fix typo
- *(tests)* Remove ticks from identifiers- Support the ~/code/rust character in identifiers
- Support ticks in identifiers

You can see that when the block for commits that have no scope starts, there is a missing newline.

After the change in this PR, we get:

- *(README)* Fix typo
- *(tests)* Remove ticks from identifiers
- Support the ~/code/rust character in identifiers
- Support ticks in identifiers

Which is what we expect.

How Has This Been Tested?

Manually, but the change is quite trivial.

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.

@alexfertel alexfertel requested a review from orhun as a code owner August 24, 2023 13:59
@welcome
Copy link

welcome bot commented Aug 24, 2023

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

@alexfertel
Copy link
Contributor Author

alexfertel commented Aug 24, 2023

Unsure why codecov is failing in CI. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if I need to change anything?

@orhun
Copy link
Owner

orhun commented Aug 24, 2023

Thanks for the PR! 🐻 Can you comment on #165 about your stance on re-licensing as a future contributor?

Unsure why codecov is failing in CI. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if I need to change anything?

It is a spurious failure which can be ignored.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (c695ca3) 43.94% compared to head (01bb556) 43.94%.

❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #253   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   43.94%   43.94%           
=======================================
  Files          12       12           
  Lines         585      585           
=======================================
  Hits          257      257           
  Misses        328      328           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit-tests 43.94% <ø> (ø)

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.

@alexfertel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the PR! 🐻 Can you comment on #165 about your stance on re-licensing as a future contributor?

Done! #165 (comment)

@orhun orhun merged commit aad4222 into orhun:main Aug 24, 2023
@welcome
Copy link

welcome bot commented Aug 24, 2023

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.

3 participants