-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
JSON parsing changes from new product query #282
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
@phlexbot format |
|
No automatic markdownlint fixes were necessary. |
|
No automatic cmake-format fixes were necessary. |
|
Automatic clang-format fixes pushed (commit 4312595). |
knoepfel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes look reasonable, @beojan. Can you first rebase the branch on top of the latest commits to main? That should make all of the tests succeed.
Eliminates need for default constructor
4312595 to
1bf6bbf
Compare
|
@phlexbot format |
|
No automatic markdownlint fixes were necessary. |
|
No automatic cmake-format fixes were necessary. |
|
Automatic clang-format fixes pushed (commit aaebf2f35f01dadbb762c5d8a1716598c9a5c059). |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (14.28%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #282 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 75.20% 74.28% -0.93%
==========================================
Files 124 124
Lines 2916 2955 +39
Branches 513 513
==========================================
+ Hits 2193 2195 +2
- Misses 503 540 +37
Partials 220 220
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
knoepfel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. We should make sure the value_if_exists function is tested when it is eventually used. It will not hold up this PR, though
This eliminates need for default constructor.
See #267