Closed Radeity closed 1 year ago
Merging #242 (14897e5) into master (cc5a7e7) will decrease coverage by
0.04%
. The diff coverage isn/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #242 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 85.83% 85.80% -0.04%
+ Complexity 3232 3231 -1
============================================
Files 344 344
Lines 12072 12072
Branches 1087 1087
============================================
- Hits 10362 10358 -4
- Misses 1185 1187 +2
- Partials 525 527 +2
see 3 files with indirect coverage changes
:mega: We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more
simplify it first, gradually adjust it according to the usage/feedback
Also the PR title use the basic rule first (consider expand it in future)
@liuxiaocs7 could take a look
Hi, @imbajin , IMHO, I don't recommend removing section Verifying these changes
, how to test this pr is important, sometimes, it can not be tested by regular UT, also, it helps reviewer to know more about its degree of completion. Maybe we can simplify this section first.
Hi, @imbajin , I don't recommend removing section
Verifying these changes
, how to test this pr is important, sometimes, it can not be tested by regular UT, also, it helps reviewer to know more about its degree of completion. Maybe we can simplify this section first, WDYT?
Fine, use a short 🩳 description for it first, thanks for the feedback
BTW, the reason why I simplify the template is because in the “markdown source code” mode, most new users will directly “select all + delete” the content😿 (same in title), we had a similar problem with our previous issue template, until I used a new UI refactoring and did not allow it to be deleted (but the New Table UI can't use in PR template)
Fine, use a short 🩳 description for it first, thanks for the feedback
BTW, the reason why I simplify the template is because in the “markdown source code” mode, most new users will directly “select all + delete” the content😿 (same in title), we had a similar problem with our previous issue template, until I used a new UI refactoring and did not allow it to be deleted (but the New Table UI can't use in PR template)
Get your point :D, and i've modified some description, maybe this part can be improved, PTAL: https://github.com/Radeity/incubator-hugegraph-computer/blob/31ea3e02b731255f42e877dd82ee45d0a1f5182d/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md?plain=1#L51-L54
nit: should we use close: #issue_number here to be consistent with L7 and L26
Hi, @liuxiaocs7 , thanks for reminding, I think use link here is better, so i've modified comment in L7 and L26 :D
LGTM, unify it in other repo later
Added in HG Tasks, good start for beginner by refering this pr!
Purpose of the PR
Does this PR potentially affect the following parts?
Documentation Status
Doc - TODO
Doc - Done
Doc - NO Need