Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (12)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
| app = context.obj | ||
| tracking_client = TrackingClient(Tracking.Command.SUBSET, app=app) | ||
|
|
||
| if is_observation and is_get_tests_from_previous_sessions: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I gave it some thought, we should change this validation
from if is_observation and is_get_tests_from_previous_sessions: to if is_observation and is_output_exclusion_rules: to prevent miss integration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We've already checked those condition at https://github.com/launchableinc/cli/blob/main/launchable/commands/subset.py#L235, don't we?



Ruby team tries to use Zero Input Subsetting in the observation mode for their CI environment, but using both observation mode and Zero Input Subsetting are banned by CLI.
This validation rule has been introduced since https://github.com/launchableinc/cli/pull/435/files#diff-4c62e35fb4e3b2b6bff8593107cdddd1fd47eff90293edc9d838c9b2f3cff94aR138.
After discussion with @Konboi , we reached to the accord that we can relax the validation rule without any problems.
Summary by CodeRabbit