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

fix: adapt new func names #120

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 2, 2021
Merged

fix: adapt new func names #120

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 2, 2021

Conversation

tom-grivaud
Copy link
Contributor

Just adapt the name of the function according to the recent edits. The new name was just not applied to sdf_to_nsjon...

Interrogation about a possible improvement:
Makes me think about something, what about including checks in CI to test the full pipeline ? I know it will take time but maybe it would only be necessary to merge from dev to a new "master/main" branch. I haven't thought about all the details about this kind CI checks but it could avoid us using version of NCK in which don't work... I had to made test manually and correct these to make sure the new NCK we're going to use would work, I think this kind of feature could be an interesting improvement.

If you guys agree and if you think this is doable I will write a new issue.

Copy link
Contributor

@gabrielleberanger gabrielleberanger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for spotting this Tom 👍

Indeed, we are missing integration tests. It happened several times recently that we merged changes that were actually not functional, and we noticed it afterwards... As for the issue, don't you think that your suggestion overlaps the Issue #102 created by Benoit?

@tom-grivaud
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you for spotting this Tom 👍

Indeed, we are missing integration tests. It happened several times recently that we merged changes that were actually not functional, and we noticed it afterwards... As for the issue, don't you think that your suggestion overlaps the Issue #102 created by Benoit?

Yes it is what Benoît was talking about. It wont be quick to do I guess but it is worth it. As you've said, it happened a lot recently and this kind of issue is critical for both current and new users.

@tom-grivaud tom-grivaud merged commit 8b3aa47 into dev Mar 2, 2021
@tom-grivaud tom-grivaud deleted the fix-recent-edit-csvreader branch March 2, 2021 17:30
@tom-grivaud tom-grivaud restored the fix-recent-edit-csvreader branch March 9, 2021 10:43
@benoitbazouin benoitbazouin deleted the fix-recent-edit-csvreader branch March 9, 2021 10:53
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.

2 participants