-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 211
[WIP] Add support for Studies #620
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
…est to perform with the user
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #620 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 89.59% 89.88% +0.29%
===========================================
Files 32 32
Lines 3123 3193 +70
===========================================
+ Hits 2798 2870 +72
+ Misses 325 323 -2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Looks good to me. Except that one line which basically says to not merge this PR. |
|
And it seems there are some minor flake8 errors in the push test. I really don't know what to do with the flake8 errors in the PR test as they are so many and would only happen after the merge. |
we need to wait for the PHP PR to be merged.
Bigger issue: some lines are OK, other still contain mistakes (legacy mistakes, and we don't really want to solve them all at once) Clearly it would be beneficial to have the whole project flake compatible. We can maybe ask the programmer to do so on one of the first days? (Once all big PR's are merged) From there on flake can run on all lines, not just the diff, and we don't have these problems anymore. The problems introduced in this PR will be fixed by me. |
flake8 residuals. this is fine right? Can we inform it that this warning in |
| # engine is behind. | ||
| # TODO: mock this? We have the arff already on the server | ||
| self._wait_for_processed_run(run.run_id, 200) | ||
| print(run.run_id) |
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.
Could you please remove this call to the print function?
|
Looks good to me except for the failing unit tests. |
Reference Issue
What does this PR implement/fix? Explain your changes.
How should this PR be tested?
Any other comments?