Codecov Report

Merging #1896 (d53aeb4) into main (3df404c) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1896   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.34%   95.35%           
=======================================
  Files          78       78           
  Lines        5092     5101    +9     
=======================================
+ Hits         4855     4864    +9     
  Misses        237      237           

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Huh, this is an odd situation as we have POST and GET to the same endpoint doing almost the same thing, plus the POST on the instance level (https://github.com/python-gitlab/python-gitlab/blob/main/gitlab/client.py#L374-L393).

I would expect just POST without content to default to using the latest HEAD instead of doing GET/POST, interesting. Might be a topic for the GitLab API call as well.

Huh, this is an odd situation as we have POST and GET to the same endpoint doing almost the same thing, plus the POST on the instance level (https://github.com/python-gitlab/python-gitlab/blob/main/gitlab/client.py#L374-L393).

I would expect just POST without content to default to using the latest HEAD instead of doing GET/POST, interesting. Might be a topic for the GitLab API call as well.

I'm not sure my approach is the best way to do this, thus why it is in draft status. It did work though in my testing as I had a request to do this at my work.

I'll get back to it after my other PRs get merged or rejected 😁

Hello! I hope this PR could be merged, thanks for the work :)

To add my two cents,

• About the best approach considering the different API calls. I think the lib could implement them, as I don't expect client libs to try and solve "weirdnesses" in the server API.
• Nevertheless, the GET endpoint could probably be included as a first step, as it provides value not included in the instance level call (get merged_yaml without providing any context other than the project id).

Thanks for getting in touch @GabDug!

The discussion I think was mostly about the fact that if we follow our normal Mixin patterns, we will end up with both project.ci_lint.get() and project.ci_lint.create(my_yaml_content) - which might look a bit unintuitive in this specific case, but otherwise I agree.

Edit: but now that I look at it again, I guess it's not that bad.

@nejch and @GabDug I finally got back to this. Now has docs and tests. So it is finally ready for review.