Appbundle

[fremartini]

Closes #330

[ghost]

👇 Click on the image for a new way to code review

Legend

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (e680de1) 73.93% compared to head (e77ca64) 73.93%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #515   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   73.93%   73.93%           
=======================================
  Files         128      128           
  Lines        1527     1527           
=======================================
  Hits         1129     1129           
  Misses        398      398           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	73.93% <ø> (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.

[marfavi]

Fix merge conflicts

[jonasanker]

@fremartini There has been a larger refactoring in #517 which you should take into account. It will probably give you a few bumps :)

Secondly. I would be mindful of not over-engineering with action files. I can see the value where several workflows have a need to call an action. In cases where an action is only called by one function, it might be just fine to have the steps in the workflow file :)

Thirdly, I am not sure but we should verify that Github Action supports parsing secrets as inputs such that we not leak secret values by accident when parsed as a input.

[marfavi]

I will leave this up to @jonasanker to review

[jonasanker]

Cool refactoring. I have added some comments

[jonasanker]

Tests must be run on the main branch to be able to make a code coverage diff for other branches.

[jonasanker]

Oh the joy of principles. Tak Martini ✅✅✅