Skip to content

Conversation

@danielhollas
Copy link
Collaborator

Split from #7091.

In this PR we expose RabbitmqBroker as a public interface, which I think makes sense.

On the other hand, other variables probably should not be public so I removed them from __all__ definitions, otherwise they would be added automatically once we land #7091.

@GeigerJ2 not sure who would be best to review this.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 4, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.60%. Comparing base (4f28b78) to head (5246928).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7127      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.59%   79.60%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         566      566              
  Lines       43543    43541       -2     
==========================================
+ Hits        34654    34658       +4     
+ Misses       8889     8883       -6     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@danielhollas danielhollas force-pushed the autogenerate-brokers-inits branch from 7d3f9cc to 5246928 Compare December 8, 2025 09:57
@danielhollas danielhollas requested a review from khsrali December 8, 2025 09:58
@khsrali khsrali requested a review from agoscinski December 8, 2025 14:56
@khsrali
Copy link
Contributor

khsrali commented Dec 8, 2025

@danielhollas I think @agoscinski is a better reviewer for this PR, since he's touching the topic currently.

@khsrali khsrali removed their request for review December 8, 2025 14:58
@danielhollas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@khsrali thanks, sounds good!

@danielhollas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@agoscinski can you take a quick look? This is a small and (hopefully) non-controversial change that I split from #7091 for easier review.

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