Skip to content

Conversation

@cdalar
Copy link
Owner

@cdalar cdalar commented Oct 28, 2025

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 28, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 19.27711% with 67 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 9.08%. Comparing base (2e5e230) to head (75aadda).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
cmd/action.go 19.27% 64 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##            main    #724      +/-   ##
========================================
+ Coverage   8.33%   9.08%   +0.75%     
========================================
  Files         31      32       +1     
  Lines       3036    2521     -515     
========================================
- Hits         253     229      -24     
+ Misses      2762    2268     -494     
- Partials      21      24       +3     

☔ 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.

@cdalar cdalar marked this pull request as ready for review October 29, 2025 06:51
@cdalar cdalar merged commit 96a16c9 into main Oct 29, 2025
15 checks passed
Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment on lines +151 to +153
func init() {
actionCmd.Flags().StringVarP(&actionParamsFile, "params", "p", "", "JSON parameter file to pass as stdin")
rootCmd.AddCommand(actionCmd)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Badge Skip cloud provider detection for the new action command

Registering actionCmd causes Execute to route through checkCloudProvider because the root command only bypasses that logic for init and version. Running onctl action … now requires ONCTL_CLOUD or a detectable cloud environment even though the action subcommand does not interact with any cloud provider. This makes the feature unusable on hosts that haven’t configured a provider. Consider adding the action command to the same exclusion list in Execute so it can run without cloud configuration.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

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