refactor!: remove A2AExpressApp#363
refactor!: remove A2AExpressApp#363bartek-gralewicz merged 9 commits intoepic/1.0_breaking_changesfrom
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request focuses on the removal of the Highlights
Ignored Files
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. Footnotes
|
bartek-gralewicz
changed the title
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request removes the test file for A2AExpressApp. While the intent is to eventually remove the class, this change alone leaves the class untested in the codebase. My review comment highlights the risk of this approach and recommends including the removal of the A2AExpressApp class itself in this pull request to ensure the main branch remains in a consistent, tested state.
# Description Modification to code coverage calculation workflow so that the comparison is made against target branch and not `main`. This is valuable when PR targets some epic branch. Comparing the coverage with `main` branch is not accurate if the epic branch already drifted from `main`. # IMPORTANT NOTE An attempt to test this change was done on a draft PR: #363 but the coverage comment workflow is executed from the `main` branch and not from the branch checkout. This means that in order to properly test this functionality in action, it needs to reach `main` state. In case any issues occur, I will provide an update to this logic or revert back to the original state.
🧪 Code CoverageNo coverage changes. Generated by coverage-comment.yml |
# Description Modification to code coverage calculation workflow so that the comparison is made against target branch and not `main`. This is valuable when PR targets some epic branch. Comparing the coverage with `main` branch is not accurate if the epic branch already drifted from `main`. # IMPORTANT NOTE An attempt to test this change was done on a draft PR: a2aproject#363 but the coverage comment workflow is executed from the `main` branch and not from the branch checkout. This means that in order to properly test this functionality in action, it needs to reach `main` state. In case any issues occur, I will provide an update to this logic or revert back to the original state.
# Description Removal of `A2AExpressApp` in favor of using middleware directly. # List of changes - Removed `A2AExpressApp`. - Updated tests for `A2AExpressApp` to use middleware directly. - Setup logic that was previously present in the `A2AExpressApp` is now present as a helper function in the test file. - Name update: `a2a_express_app.spec.ts` -> `express_app.spec.ts`. Fixes (partially) #179 🦕
2 participants
Description
Removal of
A2AExpressAppin favor of using middleware directly.List of changes
A2AExpressApp.A2AExpressAppto use middleware directly.A2AExpressAppis now present as a helper function in the test file.a2a_express_app.spec.ts->express_app.spec.ts.Fixes (partially) #179 🦕