Oh gosh, I thought reset my branch to the latest upstream before starting work, but apparently I reset to some other entirely different branch instead. Will sort it out.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.09%. Comparing base (768c715) to head (b22f346).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #1971   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     83.08%   83.09%           
- Complexity     2328     2329    +1     
=========================================
  Files           231      231           
  Lines          7164     7168    +4     
  Branches        376      377    +1     
=========================================
+ Hits           5952     5956    +4     
  Misses          974      974           
  Partials        238      238           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

The code coverage report is interesting. My code handles the case where the "Date" field isn't set, even though all the example responses from GitHub do include this header. I could fix the coverage warning by removing the guard, and assuming that "Date" is always present – but I don't think that would improve the code quality. :)

I could also fix the warning by adding a test for that scenario, but I'm not sure it's the best use of time, since it's an unlikely scenario which the code already guards against. What do you think, @bitwiseman?

I'm not convinced it's adding value, since it's trivial code and an unlikely scenario, but I've added the test for the "missing date header" case. :)

Sorry, I thought I'd responded to say that a missing Date header is so rare that I'd be fine not covering it. Thanks for do it!