feat: allow/fix no keywords in output.xml processing#297
Draft
HuntTheSun wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
Signed-off-by: HuntTheSun <HuntTheSun@users.noreply.github.com>
Collaborator
|
@HuntTheSun it is indeed fine not to make an issue for this. I think it is indeed small enough. I dont mind adding this, but I think there could be 2 improvements:
Let me know what you think about these points! |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Hi @timdegroot1996
for the sake of our pipeline and storage systems, we strip our output.xml of keywords during robotframework tests.
Sadly, robotframework-dashboard runs into an exception here if there are no keywords in the output:
Would my "fix" be alright or do you dislike the "feature"/"fix"?
The keywords are empty for the run in the web-ui, no errors in the console.
Sorry for opening a PR directly, I thought a new Issue for a 1-line change would be a bit overkill :)