search

RMI-PACTA / pacta.portfolio.report

pacta.portfolio.report
https://rmi-pacta.github.io/pacta.portfolio.report/
MIT License
1 stars 0 forks source link

feat: in tech mix, distinguish similarly named scenarios by prepending source #75

Closed jdhoffa closed 4 months ago

jdhoffa commented 4 months ago

Maybe closes #74 Relates to AB#10962

Screenshot 2024-05-08 at 08 48 33
codecov[bot] commented 4 months ago

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 0.81%. Comparing base (a3010b7) to head (ec84c86).

Files Patch % Lines
R/prep_techexposure_future.R 0.00% 1 Missing :warning:
Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #75 +/- ## ======================================== - Coverage 0.81% 0.81% -0.01% ======================================== Files 25 25 Lines 1594 1595 +1 ======================================== Hits 13 13 - Misses 1581 1582 +1 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

jdhoffa commented 4 months ago

@cjyetman @MonikaFu given that we barely have any tests in this repo together (and adding a good testing infrastructure is a large task unto itself), I would elect to ignore the 2 failing test coverage checks.

cjyetman commented 4 months ago

@cjyetman @MonikaFu given that we barely have any tests in this repo together (and adding a good testing infrastructure is a large task unto itself), I would elect to ignore the 2 failing test coverage checks.

I'm not a fan of Codecov failing tests because of lack of coverage. It's there to give us information, not tell us we shouldn't merge things.