Fix wrong reference for global attachments #301
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
davidjgoss
changed the title
davidjgoss
force-pushed
the
global-hook-attachments-rework
branch
from
001792a to
4f49630
Compare
mpkorstanje
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
davidjgoss
requested review from
mattwynne,
ehuelsmann,
luke-hill,
clrudolphi and
mpkorstanje
mattwynne
approved these changes
Jun 11, 2025
luke-hill
approved these changes
Jun 11, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
🤔 What's changed?
I made a design mistake in #102.
As a result, the schema supports attachments that are at the test run level - because they are made from a
BeforeAllorAfterAllhook - but links them directly to the test run viatestRunStartedId, when really it should be to the hook withtestRunHookStartedId, which in turn can be traced to the test run if required.In practise, no consuming projects have implemented test run level attachments with these messages yet - either in formatters or Cucumber implementations. Nevertheless we'll do this in an expand-migrate-contract style, with the old deprecated field being removed later. This does still count as a breaking change, because for some languages any new field means a changed constructor signature.
🏷️ What kind of change is this?
📋 Checklist:
This text was originally generated from a template, then edited by hand. You can modify the template here.