Skip to content

NO-SNOW: Revocation Validation new link#1740

Open
sfc-gh-pcyrek wants to merge 8 commits intomasterfrom
NO-SNOW-Revocation-validator-new-link
Open

NO-SNOW: Revocation Validation new link#1740
sfc-gh-pcyrek wants to merge 8 commits intomasterfrom
NO-SNOW-Revocation-validator-new-link

Conversation

@sfc-gh-pcyrek
Copy link
Contributor

Description

NO-SNOW: Revocation Validation new link

Checklist

  • Added proper logging (if possible)
  • Created tests which fail without the change (if possible)
  • Extended the README / documentation, if necessary

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 11, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 72.47%. Comparing base (82df1b6) to head (c237a29).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1740      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.48%   72.47%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         124      124              
  Lines       19781    19781              
==========================================
- Hits        14339    14336       -3     
- Misses       5442     5445       +3     

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

@sfc-gh-boler sfc-gh-boler force-pushed the NO-SNOW-Revocation-validator-new-link branch from c5b2fde to ce3a81f Compare March 12, 2026 21:04
…-link' into NO-SNOW-Revocation-validator-new-link

# Conflicts:
#	ci/test_revocation.sh
# Point the framework at the local Go driver checkout
go mod edit -replace "github.com/snowflakedb/gosnowflake=${DRIVER_DIR}"
# Update the framework to import gosnowflake v2 directly
find . -name '*.go' -exec sed -i 's|"github.com/snowflakedb/gosnowflake"|"github.com/snowflakedb/gosnowflake/v2"|g' {} +
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think this is a good idea. It's fragile. We should fix it in the revocation validation repo.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants