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

Bot mail change #1603

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 2, 2021
Merged

Bot mail change #1603

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 2, 2021

Conversation

epassaro
Copy link
Member

@epassaro epassaro commented Jun 2, 2021

Description

Use the new bot email.

@epassaro epassaro marked this pull request as draft June 2, 2021 19:50
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 2, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #1603 (a2af220) into master (bdeb1a6) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head a2af220 differs from pull request most recent head 1b55a46. Consider uploading reports for the commit 1b55a46 to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1603   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.20%   67.20%           
=======================================
  Files          73       73           
  Lines        6150     6150           
=======================================
  Hits         4133     4133           
  Misses       2017     2017           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update bdeb1a6...1b55a46. Read the comment docs.

@epassaro epassaro marked this pull request as ready for review June 2, 2021 20:30
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 2, 2021

Before a PR is accepted, it must meet the following criteria:

  • Is the necessary information provided?
    • Does the PR have a complete description? Does it explain what the PR is attempting to do/fix, does it explain how it does this?
    • Is there an explanation of why this PR is needed?
    • Please use the TARDIS PR template
  • Is this a duplicate PR?
    • If a new PR is clearly a duplicate, ask how this PR is different from the original PR?
    • If this PR is about to be merged, close the original PR with a link to this new PR that solved the issue.
  • Does it pass existing tests and are new tests provided if required?
    • The test coverage should not decrease, and for new features should be at or very close to 100%.
  • Is the code properly documented?
    • If this modifies existing code, then the docs should be updated. If this adds a new feature, additional documentation should be created.
    • Sphinx and docstrings in the code (in numpydoc format)
  • Does this conform to PEP 8 and the TARDIS style guidelines?
  • Does the PR fix the problem it describes?
    • Make sure it doesn’t e.g. just fix the problem for a specific case
    • Is this the best way of fixing the problem?
  • Is the code tidy?
    • No unnecessary print lines or code comments

1 similar comment
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 2, 2021

Before a PR is accepted, it must meet the following criteria:

  • Is the necessary information provided?
    • Does the PR have a complete description? Does it explain what the PR is attempting to do/fix, does it explain how it does this?
    • Is there an explanation of why this PR is needed?
    • Please use the TARDIS PR template
  • Is this a duplicate PR?
    • If a new PR is clearly a duplicate, ask how this PR is different from the original PR?
    • If this PR is about to be merged, close the original PR with a link to this new PR that solved the issue.
  • Does it pass existing tests and are new tests provided if required?
    • The test coverage should not decrease, and for new features should be at or very close to 100%.
  • Is the code properly documented?
    • If this modifies existing code, then the docs should be updated. If this adds a new feature, additional documentation should be created.
    • Sphinx and docstrings in the code (in numpydoc format)
  • Does this conform to PEP 8 and the TARDIS style guidelines?
  • Does the PR fix the problem it describes?
    • Make sure it doesn’t e.g. just fix the problem for a specific case
    • Is this the best way of fixing the problem?
  • Is the code tidy?
    • No unnecessary print lines or code comments

@andrewfullard andrewfullard merged commit ba54c99 into tardis-sn:master Jun 2, 2021
atharva-2001 pushed a commit to atharva-2001/tardis that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2021
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