Skip to content

Update tests #1278

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 11, 2020
Merged

Update tests #1278

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 11, 2020

Conversation

dplewis
Copy link
Member

@dplewis dplewis commented Dec 11, 2020

Bump parse-server to #43d9af8

Bump parse-server to [#43d9af8
](parse-community/parse-server@43d9af8)
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 11, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #1278 (f61239a) into master (d40f150) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master     #1278   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           57        57           
  Lines         5434      5434           
  Branches      1219      1219           
=========================================
  Hits          5434      5434           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d40f150...f61239a. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@davimacedo davimacedo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are we removing the tests with length?

@davimacedo
Copy link
Member

Nevermind. I've just seen the other related PRs.

@dplewis dplewis merged commit 7fb7b2d into master Dec 11, 2020
@dplewis dplewis deleted the flaky-tests branch December 11, 2020 16:20
@mtrezza
Copy link
Member

mtrezza commented Dec 11, 2020

LGTM, although I am starting to wonder whether we have the best approach when it comes to reserved field names. Why would a developer have to care about internally used field names. Maybe we should just encode the field names in a different way, so that they are separate from any JS property names. But that's a whole other PR.

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