Skip to content

fix bug 1250066 concerning point with skin extraction #823

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

MichaelNale
Copy link
Contributor

change add_beam to add_beam_point to be compliant with changes server side

Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 17, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 85.12%. Comparing base (b3192dd) to head (2aaaf4c).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #823   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   85.12%   85.12%           
=======================================
  Files          52       52           
  Lines        5210     5210           
=======================================
  Hits         4435     4435           
  Misses        775      775           
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@MichaelNale MichaelNale reopened this Apr 18, 2025
@MichaelNale
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rlagha
This PR needs to be merged first in order to properly merge the one in TFS without breaking Post. Once server side is ok I will update those tests regarding the new functionality of this API (add_beam --> add_beam_point so some num_entity need to be update as more elements are taken into account)

@MichaelNale MichaelNale requested a review from rafacanton April 18, 2025 09:20
@MichaelNale
Copy link
Contributor Author

@PProfizi I don't understand why commenting a test make those checks fail. Locally everything's fine BTW.

@MichaelNale MichaelNale requested a review from PProfizi April 18, 2025 09:55
@rafacanton
Copy link
Contributor

@MichaelNale @PProfizi Because the failure in the examples is unrelated to this change. It is related to the issue in this PR: #820

@janvonrickenbach
Copy link
Contributor

@MichaelNale Could you not add an additional input "add_beam_point" and keep the current add_beam input. You could then deprecate the add_beam input. There are other clients such as Result Explorer that will break due to this change.

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.

4 participants