codecov[bot]
commented
3 months ago Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 92.37%. Comparing base (
5bc4514) to head (8a9a983).
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #635 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 92.36% 92.37% +0.01% ========================================== Files 126 125 -1 Lines 7357 7355 -2 Branches 626 626 ========================================== - Hits 6795 6794 -1 + Misses 562 561 -1 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/projectglow/glow/pull/635/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=projectglow) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/projectglow/glow/pull/635/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=projectglow) | `92.37% <ø> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=projectglow#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
What changes are proposed in this pull request?
While testing the staged release, I found a naming collision between the quinary expression in Glow and the version that was later released in Spark. This could cause errors at runtime.
How is this patch tested?
(Details)
To run Spark 4 tests against your PR, include
[SPARK4]in the title.