Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 73.56%. Comparing base (e38c8c2) to head (5a42dd9).
⚠️ Report is 66 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #650      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.42%   73.56%   +1.13%     
==========================================
  Files          67       65       -2     
  Lines        5132     5315     +183     
  Branches      605      619      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits         3717     3910     +193     
+ Misses       1227     1212      -15     
- Partials      188      193       +5     

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

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 20 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review. ✅ Project coverage is 73.53%. Comparing base (e38c8c2) to head (7ea1358). ⚠️ Report is 65 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/dvc_data/hashfile/gc.py 0.00% 20 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

Hi maintainers,

I've refactored the gc function by abstracting its core logic into a new iter_garbage generator.

As you can see, the patch coverage is 0%. I've confirmed this is because the tests for this logic reside in the main dvc repository as integration tests. The dvc-data CI runs standalone and doesn't execute them, so it correctly reports the new function as untested within this library's context.

To make dvc-data more robust and independently verifiable, I propose adding unit tests for the gc.py module directly in this PR. This will resolve the coverage issue and improve the library's overall quality.

Let me know if you agree with this approach, and I'll proceed with writing the tests.

@GreenHatHG, do you mind creating a new PR with cherry-picked changes from cf348ab? Isn't that enough?

@GreenHatHG, do you mind creating a new PR with cherry-picked changes from cf348ab? Isn't that enough?

Hi.
Oops, I actually missed your earlier comment and had already force-pushed before seeing it. 😅
Now the PR is down to a single minimal commit and the changes are the same.
Does this look good now? Ready for review/merge?

Released dvc-data 3.18.0.