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

libschedutil: use preprocessor symbols for flags #6520

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 17, 2024

Conversation

garlick
Copy link
Member

@garlick garlick commented Dec 17, 2024

Problem: its laborious to test flux-core for the existence of schedutil flags because they are anonymous enums.

Convert to preprocessor symbols that can be easily checked with an #ifdef in the scheduler.

Problem: it's laborious to test flux-core for the existence
of schedutil flags because they are anonymous enums.

Convert to preprocessor symbols that can be easily checked
with an #ifdef in the scheduler.
Copy link
Contributor

@grondo grondo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@garlick
Copy link
Member Author

garlick commented Dec 17, 2024

Thanks! I'll set MWP.

@mergify mergify bot merged commit a9666a8 into flux-framework:master Dec 17, 2024
35 checks passed
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.61%. Comparing base (09d70fa) to head (69b0247).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6520      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.62%   83.61%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         522      522              
  Lines       87734    87734              
==========================================
- Hits        73368    73356      -12     
- Misses      14366    14378      +12     

see 9 files with indirect coverage changes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants