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

[chore][graph] Separate node types #11321

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 1, 2024

Conversation

djaglowski
Copy link
Member

Having spent some time on #11311, I think it may be time to start refactoring this codebase into a more maintainable state. This PR just moves the various types of nodes into separate files, which I think is a bit more readable when considering changes.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 1, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.17476% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 91.44%. Comparing base (700aadc) to head (86bdcb5).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
service/internal/graph/exporter.go 92.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
service/internal/graph/processor.go 92.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
service/internal/graph/reciever.go 94.28% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #11321   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.43%   91.44%           
=======================================
  Files         424      430    +6     
  Lines       20270    20270           
=======================================
+ Hits        18533    18535    +2     
+ Misses       1360     1359    -1     
+ Partials      377      376    -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@djaglowski djaglowski marked this pull request as ready for review October 1, 2024 13:42
@djaglowski djaglowski requested a review from a team as a code owner October 1, 2024 13:42
@djaglowski djaglowski requested a review from bogdandrutu October 1, 2024 13:42
@bogdandrutu
Copy link
Member

@djaglowski 100% agree. Do I remember asking you do to this?

@bogdandrutu bogdandrutu merged commit 1295083 into open-telemetry:main Oct 1, 2024
65 of 66 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the next release milestone Oct 1, 2024
@djaglowski djaglowski deleted the graph-separate-nodes branch October 1, 2024 16:02
bogdandrutu pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2024
This PR follows #11321 by splitting up the primary test file into a few
related topics. I believe this will make further refactoring PRs easier
to follow.
jackgopack4 pushed a commit to jackgopack4/opentelemetry-collector that referenced this pull request Oct 8, 2024
Having spent some time on open-telemetry#11311, I think it may be time to start
refactoring this codebase into a more maintainable state. This PR just
moves the various types of nodes into separate files, which I think is a
bit more readable when considering changes.
jackgopack4 pushed a commit to jackgopack4/opentelemetry-collector that referenced this pull request Oct 8, 2024
This PR follows open-telemetry#11321 by splitting up the primary test file into a few
related topics. I believe this will make further refactoring PRs easier
to follow.
HongChenTW pushed a commit to HongChenTW/opentelemetry-collector that referenced this pull request Dec 19, 2024
Having spent some time on open-telemetry#11311, I think it may be time to start
refactoring this codebase into a more maintainable state. This PR just
moves the various types of nodes into separate files, which I think is a
bit more readable when considering changes.
HongChenTW pushed a commit to HongChenTW/opentelemetry-collector that referenced this pull request Dec 19, 2024
This PR follows open-telemetry#11321 by splitting up the primary test file into a few
related topics. I believe this will make further refactoring PRs easier
to follow.
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.

2 participants