-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45
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
Add editoast ci code to operational point search #6145
Conversation
381ee83
to
f810be0
Compare
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 (only reviewed / not tested)
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #6145 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 26.63% 26.63% -0.01%
Complexity 2123 2123
============================================
Files 930 930
Lines 123359 123363 +4
Branches 2677 2677
============================================
- Hits 32857 32856 -1
- Misses 88916 88921 +5
Partials 1586 1586
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
7a6c048
to
09eda5b
Compare
09eda5b
to
bad710c
Compare
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
A sneaky inconsistency was introduced with the Search derive macro: the table
search_operationalpoint
becamesearch_operational_point
but the tiggers on the infra_obejct table were not updated to include the_
.