[cmd/builder] Remove undocumented strictness check #9999
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mx-psi
added
area:builder
release:blocker
mx-psi
requested review from
a team,
codeboten,
kristinapathak and
evan-bradley
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #9999 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 91.68% 91.67% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 360 360
Lines 16641 16639 -2
==========================================
- Hits 15257 15253 -4
- Misses 1051 1052 +1
- Partials 333 334 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
evan-bradley
approved these changes
Apr 19, 2024
kristinapathak
approved these changes
Apr 19, 2024
codeboten
approved these changes
Apr 19, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Partially reverts #9897. This was not documented on the original PR and is IMO too strict.
We likely want to allow for some skew between versions.
Mentioned on #9513 (comment)