Forked branch

[valyo]

Pull Request Template

Before Marking as Ready for Review

• Add relevant information to the sections below (Summary etc)
• Rebase or merge the latest dev (or other targeted branch)
• Update documentation if needed
• Add an entry to the SPRINTLOG.md if needed
• Choose an appropriate label. See here for information on the labelling options
• The code follows the style guidelines
• Perform a self-review: read the diff as if reviewing someone else's code
• I have commented the code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• Verify that all checks and tests have passed

If the target branch is master:

• Read and follow the release instructions

Summary

Workaround for #927

Related Issue/Ticket

Link GitHub issue or provide Jira ID.

Testing

If applicable: How did you verify the change? Include commands, data, or screenshots.

Reviewer Notes

Anything that helps reviewers (e.g. areas needing close attention).

---

Once all boxes are checked, mark the PR as Ready for Review and tag at least one team member as the initial reviewer.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 93dbcd907e

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Pin Ruff version in CI to keep lint checks reproducible

Installing Ruff with pip install ruff pulls the latest release on every run, so lint/format outcomes can change without any code changes (for example when a new Ruff release adds checks under the enabled E/F/PL rule families or changes formatting behavior). This makes CI non-deterministic and can suddenly block merges or make old commits fail on rerun; pinning Ruff to a known version avoids that regression.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 20.51282% with 31 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 54.45%. Comparing base (342abc1) to head (93dbcd9).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
dds_cli/__main__.py	5.26%	18 Missing ⚠️
dds_cli/file_handler_local.py	14.28%	6 Missing ⚠️
dds_cli/user.py	25.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
dds_cli/project_status.py	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
dds_cli/data_lister.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
dds_cli/file_encryptor.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##              dev     #929   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   54.45%   54.45%           
=======================================
  Files          33       33           
  Lines        3043     3043           
=======================================
  Hits         1657     1657           
  Misses       1386     1386           

☔ 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.