Sgmoore/add core24 support

[ScarlettGatelyMoore]

• [ x] Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
• [x ] Have you signed the CLA?
• [x ] Have you successfully run tox run -m lint?
• [x ] Have you successfully run tox run -e test-py310? (supported versions: py39, py310, py311, py312)

---

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.30435% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 89.70%. Comparing base (654871d) to head (9a56161).
Report is 633 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
snapcraft/extensions/kde_neon_6.py	91.30%	2 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (654871d) and HEAD (9a56161). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (654871d)	HEAD (9a56161)
	2	1

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5092      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.88%   89.70%   -5.18%     
==========================================
  Files         658      341     -317     
  Lines       55189    22608   -32581     
==========================================
- Hits        52364    20280   -32084     
+ Misses       2825     2328     -497     

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

[ScarlettGatelyMoore]

@mr-cal @sergiusens Please help with this security scan. I don't know how to fix it. Thanks

[mr-cal]

@mr-cal @sergiusens Please help with this security scan. I don't know how to fix it. Thanks

Hi @ScarlettGatelyMoore, you can ignore the security scan failures for now, it is a problem between github and trivy that @lengau has been investigating.

This is the error I'm referring to:

2024-10-07T13:30:16Z	FATAL	Fatal error	init error: DB error: failed to download vulnerability DB: database download error: OCI repository error: 1 error occurred:
	* GET https://ghcr.io/v2/aquasecurity/trivy-db/manifests/2: TOOMANYREQUESTS: retry-after: 426.143µs, allowed: 44000/minute

[lengau]

@mr-cal @sergiusens I believe the security scan is fixed with this, but I haven't properly tested it yet so I don't have a PR. ITMT we can just re-run them.

[lengau]

This LGTM so far, but I'd like to snap an app with it before I give explicit approval just in case I come across any quirks we might want to document.

[lengau]

This isn't really about this PR, but comparing this to the gnome extension we've got a lot of overlap. I wonder whether it would be worth creating an abstract DesktopExtension where this sort of general stuff could live, so we can share more common work?

@mr-cal @sergiusens @kenvandine what do you think?

Things that overlap and could just be extended for each desktop include

• plugs
• GPU plugs
• GPU layouts
• Some base themes

I'm happy to do the work for that, but I only want to do it if I'm actually making things better :-)

[soumyaDghosh]

I am coming up with the change so that we can pass the platform plug as a parameter in the Makefile

[ScarlettGatelyMoore]

Please can we not do major revamps before this pr. This supposed to be about core24.

[soumyaDghosh]

Please can we not do major revamps before this pr. This supposed to be about core24.

I do understand that, but this is not a major change. Please commit the suggestions and remove the command-chain-kde folder. That's all needed. Rest is completely fine.

[ScarlettGatelyMoore]

@lengau @mr-cal @sergiusens I don't understand why there are changes to the extension suddenly. I did not make them and they don't make any sense.

[ScarlettGatelyMoore]

@lengau @mr-cal @sergiusens I don't understand why there are changes to the extension suddenly. I did not make them and they don't make any sense.

Nevermind... I see

[ScarlettGatelyMoore]

I am struggling with the code coverage. Anything other than core24 or core22 fails with invalid key. i tried to cheat and see what gnome did, they didn't cover it either.

[mr-cal]

@ScarlettGatelyMoore - the only thing I see is that there is not a test for these lines:

            case _:
                raise AssertionError(f"Unsupported base: {base}")

Now, why the code coverage says it dropped 5.17%? Don't worry about that - the tool seems to get confused very easily and everything else looks well tested.