Skip to content

Conversation

@honnix
Copy link
Member

@honnix honnix commented Jan 26, 2026

Tracking issue

Why are the changes needed?

When -o json is specified, the output must be a valid json, however this print breaks it.

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Removing the print out.

Alternatively, we could check output format first and then decide on whether to print this or not.

How was this patch tested?

Labels

Please add one or more of the following labels to categorize your PR:

  • added: For new features.
  • changed: For changes in existing functionality.
  • deprecated: For soon-to-be-removed features.
  • removed: For features being removed.
  • fixed: For any bug fixed.
  • security: In case of vulnerabilities

This is important to improve the readability of release notes.

Setup process

Screenshots

Check all the applicable boxes

  • I updated the documentation accordingly.
  • All new and existing tests passed.
  • All commits are signed-off.

Related PRs

#6538

Docs link

Signed-off-by: Honnix <honnix@users.noreply.github.com>
@honnix honnix requested a review from arbaobao January 26, 2026 19:18
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 26, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 56.95%. Comparing base (575c0af) to head (27bcd2b).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6872      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   56.96%   56.95%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         929      929              
  Lines       58152    58151       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        33125    33120       -5     
- Misses      21985    21989       +4     
  Partials     3042     3042              
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests-datacatalog 53.51% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteadmin 53.10% <ø> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unittests-flytecopilot 43.06% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytectl 64.02% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
unittests-flyteidl 75.71% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteplugins 60.13% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytepropeller 53.63% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytestdlib 63.29% <ø> (+0.02%) ⬆️

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.

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

@honnix
Copy link
Member Author

honnix commented Jan 26, 2026

There is a check failure which I'm not sure is because of this change. @pingsutw Could you please help when you get time? Also will merging this create a new release automatically?

@pingsutw pingsutw merged commit 4399ba8 into flyteorg:master Jan 26, 2026
50 of 52 checks passed
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