Leonhard Küper

> I'm happy with closing mine PR in favor of #123, mine is one independent file so it will be easy to integrate. @vasekch thx, I will integrate your file....

I can't please the coverage ci. Here it runs with 99%: https://github.com/CERES-RUB/djangocms-picture/actions/runs/5669526899/job/15362500833 But in the individual cases it always has 100%. I don't know why. https://github.com/CERES-RUB/djangocms-picture/actions/runs/5669526899/job/15362423893 https://github.com/CERES-RUB/djangocms-picture/actions/runs/5669526899/job/15362424081 https://github.com/CERES-RUB/djangocms-picture/actions/runs/5669526899/job/15362424300 https://github.com/CERES-RUB/djangocms-picture/actions/runs/5669526899/job/15362424467

If I run ``` tox run -f py38 tox run -f py311 python -m coverage report --fail-under=100 ``` I get a coverage report of 100%. If I how ever run...

So, I learned that to combine, one needs to run `coverage run --parallel-mode`, so that the `.coverage` files are created like `.coverage.`. So I did that. But the problem did...

If no one can find a solution, I suggest removing `--fail-under=100` and accept less then 100% coverage.

Here are some reports: ``` coverage erase tox run -f py311 coverage combine coverage html ``` yields to  ``` coverage erase tox run -f py38 coverage combine coverage html...

Sorry, for taking so long to answer. @fsbraun I am not sure if I understand you correctly. If we don't change the 100%-code-coverage-target, we are not able to merge the...

Should this issue stay open, until the new support is released or should we close this? The other pull-requests (#118 and #120) should be closed in any case.

> Changed migration dependency to the first migration of CMS What is the reason for that?