Ivan

Hey @ameetpal, >To collect the test result summary in alternative to the other already proposed options, this is one of the reasons why Grafana Cloud k6 exists, did you give...

Closing because the related pull request has been merged and the new event will be available in k6 v0.51.0

>Attention, this is just a placeholder PR @szkiba Does it mean we don't have to review it? If yes, can you convert it into a draft PR, please?

>Add only-new-issues: true to the golangci-lint CI action after this [line](https://github.com/grafana/k6/blob/master/.github/actions/lint/action.yml#L31), which would allow all existing linter issues to exist, but lint new code changes. This approach sounds the correct...

>I think the question is.. do we really want that? I would prefer if we do it now. The text proposal (as already suggested originally by Ned and now refined...

Intercepting here some potential future problems that we may encounter during the integration. k6pack should run https://github.com/grafana/k6-ci as we are doing on other extensions. Maybe only part of it does...

>we should emit a warning. @oleiade Why not directly an error?

Hi @juliaokmenezes, yes, it still makes sense. Feel free to open a new PR for it or ask for details if something is not clear.

Hey @juliaokmenezes, You can find the `get` and `head` methods defined here: https://github.com/grafana/k6/blob/001aff55869523cafc66a7abd6e50435cc2b0347/js/modules/k6/http/http.go#L71-L82 It sounds like a viable way to define a small validation function for the logic required for...

It is something we might consider during https://github.com/grafana/k6/issues/1342 implementation