Skip to content

Fix example in ReadMe #78

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 4, 2025

Conversation

Tortar
Copy link
Contributor

@Tortar Tortar commented Apr 3, 2025

The example didn't work before, I tried to make it work and I took the liberty to slightly change the formatting. Let me know if the intended behaviour was the other one (which currently throws when pushing) because I would be happy to try to go in that direction with another PR if desirable.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 3, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 73.88%. Comparing base (bfc1591) to head (a951c20).
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #78      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   74.08%   73.88%   -0.21%     
==========================================
  Files          17       17              
  Lines         822      831       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits          609      614       +5     
- Misses        213      217       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@jeremiahpslewis jeremiahpslewis merged commit 8af5015 into JuliaReinforcementLearning:main Apr 4, 2025
3 of 5 checks passed
@Tortar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tortar commented Apr 4, 2025

thanks for the fast merge @jeremiahpslewis! Having the first push! different from the rest seems a bit ackward, is it sensible to make the code work as was intended by the previous syntax in the readme? If so, I could try to work on that

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