Skip to content

Conversation

@HannesWell
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@HannesWell HannesWell mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2024
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 13, 2024

Test Results

   299 files  ±0     299 suites  ±0   6m 52s ⏱️ -15s
 4 099 tests ±0   4 091 ✅ ±0   8 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
12 209 runs  ±0  12 134 ✅ ±0  75 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit bdf1f05. ± Comparison against base commit d0a8af2.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@iloveeclipse
Copy link
Member

Not sure if you need #1109 first. I haven't time to check it and also can't validate it because I have no Mac.

@HannesWell HannesWell requested a review from lshanmug as a code owner March 13, 2024 20:16
@HannesWell
Copy link
Member Author

Not sure if you need #1109 first. I haven't time to check it and also can't validate it because I have no Mac.

Yes. For the moment I have also included the alternative solution given with #1111 and the build says that then all seems to work.

@HannesWell HannesWell marked this pull request as draft March 13, 2024 20:31
@HannesWell HannesWell marked this pull request as ready for review March 15, 2024 17:40
@HannesWell
Copy link
Member Author

Great. This now passes. So we can make API-tools absolutely strict and (hopefully) never miss an issue in the future anymore.

@HannesWell HannesWell merged commit 7479681 into eclipse-platform:master Mar 15, 2024
@HannesWell HannesWell deleted the stricter-api-check branch March 15, 2024 18:01
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