Skip to content

Conversation

@tpoliaw
Copy link
Contributor

@tpoliaw tpoliaw commented Jun 19, 2025

No description provided.

@tpoliaw tpoliaw requested a review from a team as a code owner June 19, 2025 16:28
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 19, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.74%. Comparing base (0c00d37) to head (b6cb2d2).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1075   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.74%   94.74%           
=======================================
  Files          42       42           
  Lines        2741     2742    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits         2597     2598    +1     
  Misses        144      144           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@callumforrester
Copy link
Contributor

@tpoliaw the fact that this isn't making any tests fail is concerning

@tpoliaw
Copy link
Contributor Author

tpoliaw commented Jun 20, 2025

We're never relying on bluesky calling it in tests and the system tests don't use numtracker

@tpoliaw tpoliaw changed the title Make calls to numtracker async feat: Make calls to numtracker async Jun 20, 2025
@tpoliaw tpoliaw force-pushed the async_numtracker branch 2 times, most recently from 3ec7d03 to 23996b6 Compare June 25, 2025 13:37
@abbiemery
Copy link
Contributor

Since we've moved on somewhat since this was opened: do we now use the call in system tests/is this tested, and if so does the change to make it async affect anything?

Could we either get this tested and in, or close this PR?

@tpoliaw
Copy link
Contributor Author

tpoliaw commented Jan 5, 2026

Rebasing it on main still doesn't cause any tests to fail so I guess it works. This probably makes sense now that bluesky support async scan_id_sources.

Whether we still want to merge this without removing other uses of requests is a separate question.

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.

4 participants