Fixed botched merge which broke 'yarn ts'#6174
Merged
Merged
Conversation
a8bf596 to
4cf61c8
Compare
canova
approved these changes
Jul 13, 2026
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #6174 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 83.49% 83.49%
=======================================
Files 344 344
Lines 36870 36868 -2
Branches 10335 10343 +8
=======================================
- Hits 30783 30782 -1
+ Misses 5660 5659 -1
Partials 427 427 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Main | Deploy preview
The auto-rebase of #6151 over #6168 caused a typecheck failure and auto-merge merged anyway. I've now added the "typecheck (ubuntu-latest)" task to the required passing tasks in the branch protection rules so this shouldn't happen again.