Eric Helms
Eric Helms
I was thinking about what the answers file is reduced to with this change and it starts to get at an issue that I've had with the scenarios but not...
I took this for a test drive and saw no significant issues. One aspect of it that I wanted to double check was intended as it generates a diff between...
The more I think about it, the more I don't know how to pull this off in a reliable way. Given an expanded answer's file is not easy to generate...
Generally, this looks like a good change. Since I am working a lot in Kafo code would this be worth while to add to the hook context as a method?
@ekohl I am OK with this change as is, if you want to come back later and update it once the Kafo changes have been released.
Is there a known test that checks and ensures FQCN is used that can be added to a Github Action?
> @ehelms is this something we want to have for 3.5? (I would think so?) Yes! I need to finish upgrade testing.
Looks great from my perspective, if you are happy with it I think it's safe to close it out.
There are two implementations of this that I know of: 1. Long ago a script was written to mash out repositories in Foreman/Katello's Koji that used comps for filtering (https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-infra/blob/master/koji/collection-mash-split.py#L205-L210)...
Odd, on a subsequent, clean run I did not get that error.