WARNING: THIS SITE IS A MIRROR OF GITHUB.COM / IT CANNOT LOGIN OR REGISTER ACCOUNTS / THE CONTENTS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS / THIS SITE ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DISPLAYED CONTENT OR LINKS / IF YOU FOUND SOMETHING MAY NOT GOOD FOR EVERYONE, CONTACT ADMIN AT ilovescratch@foxmail.com
Skip to content

Conversation

@stefanceriu
Copy link
Member

This will allow the NSE process to populate the event cache store with even data after retrieving it from sync, as opposed to dropping after rendering the notification it as it did previously.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 8, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.51%. Comparing base (ce65317) to head (a836b72).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5934   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.51%   88.51%           
=======================================
  Files         363      363           
  Lines      103469   103471    +2     
  Branches   103469   103471    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits        91582    91587    +5     
+ Misses       7533     7529    -4     
- Partials     4354     4355    +1     

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

@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Dec 8, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #5934 will not alter performance

Comparing stefan/notificationClientCrossProcessLockingStores (a836b72) with main (ce65317)

Summary

✅ 50 untouched

@stefanceriu stefanceriu requested a review from Hywan December 8, 2025 11:09
…a stores instead of in-memory ones

This will allow the NSE process to populate the event cache store with even data after retrieving it from sync, as opposed to dropping after rendering the notification it as it did previously.
@stefanceriu stefanceriu force-pushed the stefan/notificationClientCrossProcessLockingStores branch from e377d58 to a836b72 Compare December 12, 2025 11:06
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