Update pull_request_template.md #452
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #452 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 96.74% 96.68% -0.07%
==========================================
Files 57 57
Lines 12307 12134 -173
==========================================
- Hits 11907 11732 -175
- Misses 400 402 +2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
bhagemeier
approved these changes
Jan 17, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Please include a summary of the change and which issue/s is/are fixed.
Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change.
Fixes: #
Changes proposed:
Type of change
Select relevant options.
Are all split configurations tested and accounted for?
Does this change require a documentation update outside of the changes proposed?
Does this change modify the behaviour of other functions?
Are there code practices which require justification?