Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

🐛 display assessment delete error only once for bulk action #1588

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 6, 2023

Conversation

ibolton336
Copy link
Member

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 5, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (ddb5a10) 39.37% compared to head (b008b00) 39.36%.

Files Patch % Lines
client/src/app/queries/reviews.ts 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1588      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   39.37%   39.36%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         146      146              
  Lines        4815     4816       +1     
  Branches     1150     1152       +2     
==========================================
  Hits         1896     1896              
- Misses       2905     2906       +1     
  Partials       14       14              
Flag Coverage Δ
client 39.36% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
server ∅ <ø> (∅)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@ibolton336 ibolton336 merged commit cc14acb into konveyor:main Dec 6, 2023
Copy link
Member

@sjd78 sjd78 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

Pushed toast notification responsibility up to the caller of the set of mutations. Makes sense.

) => {
const queryClient = useQueryClient();

return useMutation({
mutationFn: (args: IReviewMutation) => deleteReview(args.id),
onSuccess: (_, args) => {
onSuccess(args.name);
onSuccess && onSuccess(args.name);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This does work, but is fancier like this:

      onSuccess?.(args.name);

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants