Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
fix(bump): remove NotAllowed related to --get-next option, and other related refactoring - #1645
Conversation
bearomorphism
commented
Nov 10, 2025
Lee-W
commented
Nov 11, 2025
I just update the |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@## v4-10-1 #1645 +/- ##
==========================================
Coverage ? 98.64% ==========================================
Files ? 60 Lines ? 2651 Branches ? 0 ==========================================
Hits ? 2615 Misses ? 36 Partials ? 0
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
bearomorphism
commented
Nov 11, 2025
@Lee-W@noirbizarre please review |
bearomorphism
commented
Nov 18, 2025
We may prioritize this. Clarifying which commit new branches should be based on would make it much easier for new contributors, and it should also help reduce merge conflicts and PRs being accidentally closed due to test branch deletion. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Lee-W
commented
Nov 19, 2025
Generally |

Changes
dry_run = Truewhile we already haveget_next = True. The latter condition raises aGetNextExit()exception in the original code, so no effect if we setdry_runtoTrue. Moreover, the original code isself.dry_run = Truewhich is ineffective since we never use the member variable.get_nexttonext_version_to_stdout. The variable nameget_nextis very unclear and hard to guess what it will do. I think we can consider renaming the option in the next major release.--get-nextwhen changelog is enabled #1640) ReplaceNotAllowedrelated to--get-nextoption with warnings.GetNextExitexception because we already haveDryRunExit.--get-nextis just--dry-runbut doing less things IMO.