Miloš Prchlík
Miloš Prchlík
> > @happz is this ready for re-review? > > It is not. > > > Was the issue with reproducing the test addressed? > > It was not. >...
Release note added in 319f6151.
Unrelated failure, merging.
> I'm usually using --preview locally, but not sure about enabling it config, even manually, as it might be hard to maintain. The preview rules can often be moved to...
@coderabbitai full review
> All changes seem reasonable to me. I have one question though: removing the `# noqa: S320` in tmt/steps/report/junit.py will now make the linter complain about vulnerability of XML attacks,...
> > All changes seem reasonable to me. I have one question though: removing the `# noqa: S320` in tmt/steps/report/junit.py will now make the linter complain about vulnerability of XML...
> also weird that we are enabling --preview instead keeping ruff up-to-date It doesn't seem like one-or-the-other choice to me. Even the current ruff docs, which presumably speak about the...
@lukaszachy please, check the https://github.com/teemtee/tmt/pull/2098#issuecomment-2883055478 comment, and share your thoughts on the proposed "plan of action".
> Could we track why we need a custom `Path` object? Reading the docstring, isn't `pathlib.Path.relative_to(walk_up=True)` what is needed there? It is. But that was added in Python 3.12. To...