Skip to content
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

Create alfasim_sdk.result_reader.reader.Results.get_profile_time_set #335

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

prusse-martin
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 27, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #335 (59a588b) into master (f5842fe) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #335   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.96%   99.96%           
=======================================
  Files          55       55           
  Lines        6550     6569   +19     
=======================================
+ Hits         6548     6567   +19     
  Misses          2        2           

@prusse-martin prusse-martin force-pushed the add-profile-time-set-resukt-reader branch from 51ca720 to cf26ec9 Compare October 27, 2023 21:06
@prusse-martin prusse-martin force-pushed the add-profile-time-set-resukt-reader branch from cf26ec9 to 59a588b Compare October 27, 2023 21:08
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

@prusse-martin ping

@prusse-martin
Copy link
Member Author

prusse-martin commented Feb 7, 2025

Someone did ask for this at some point (can't remember exactly who, maybe @ggrbill) but at the end it was not required and remained as a draft (I guess).

@nicoddemus
It could be rebased and merged. The "conflict" is a change of how the imports are formatted.

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

It could be rebased and merged. The "conflict" is a change of how the imports are formatted.

Please go ahead.

@ggrbill
Copy link
Member

ggrbill commented Feb 10, 2025

Someone did ask for this at some point (can't remember exactly who, maybe @ggrbill) but at the end it was not required and remained as a draft (I guess).

I really don't remember. But it seems to be useful.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants