Conversation
Melkiades
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@edelarua I think we can merge this, your PR and then refactor riskdiff if we deem it necessary. I think the behavior there is strange. I would prefer adding a subfunction to a_* functions to deal with that cases. I manage to get a weird hybrid on the other PR but it is better to have a clean slate with most recent updates
Unit Tests Summary 1 files 85 suites 1m 17s ⏱️ Results for commit fb453fb. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Unit Test Performance DifferenceAdditional test case details
Results for commit 82ad2e8 ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Code Coverage SummaryDiff against mainResults for commit: 60bc5c0 Minimum allowed coverage is ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results |
edelarua
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @Melkiades,
Great work!! I just have a few comments/suggestions but otherwise everything looks good :)
edelarua
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good to me! Just one typo I saw but otherwise whenever you're ready you can test on scda.test & then merge.
Co-authored-by: Emily de la Rua <emily.de_la_rua@contractors.roche.com> Signed-off-by: Davide Garolini <dgarolini@gmail.com>
Fixes part of #1381 and #1249 and #1390