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

704 type marker back data #143

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Jan 10, 2025
Merged

704 type marker back data #143

merged 14 commits into from
Jan 10, 2025

Conversation

Jday7879
Copy link
Collaborator

@Jday7879 Jday7879 commented Dec 20, 2024

Pull Request Title

Summary

Add your summary here - keep it brief, to the point, and in plain English.

Type of Change

  • Bug fix
  • New feature
  • Breaking change
  • Documentation update
  • Other (please describe):

Checklists

This pull request meets the following requirements:

Creator Checklist

  • Installable with all dependencies recorded
  • Runs without error
  • Follows PEP8 and project-specific conventions
  • Appropriate use of comments, for example, no descriptive comments
  • Functions documented using Numpy style docstrings
  • Assumptions and decisions log considered and updated if appropriate
  • Unit tests have been updated to cover essential functionality for a reasonable range of inputs and conditions
  • Other forms of testing such as end-to-end and user-interface testing have been considered and updated as required

If you feel some of these conditions do not apply for this pull request, please
add a comment to explain why.

Reviewer Checklist

  • Test suite passes (locally as a minimum)
  • Peer reviewed with review recorded

Additional Information

Please provide any additional information or context that would help the reviewer understand the changes in this pull request.

Related Issues

Link any related issues or pull requests here.

@Jday7879
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@robertswh this code now passes unit test data. It involved removing and the back data and re applying a couple of times. It might be possible to do this alternate ways, but this currently works for back data.

@robertswh
Copy link
Collaborator

@Jday7879 very nice. I think that's how I imagined it would work. I think this works as a bug fix and will require a more substantial refactor to simplify the code.

@Jday7879 Jday7879 marked this pull request as ready for review January 2, 2025 07:34
@lhubbardONS lhubbardONS self-requested a review January 9, 2025 11:11
Copy link
Collaborator

@lhubbardONS lhubbardONS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code all looks good, happy to approve changes

@Jday7879 Jday7879 merged commit 77649b5 into main Jan 10, 2025
5 checks passed
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.

3 participants