-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Remove arguments #630
Remove arguments #630
Conversation
✅ All contributors have signed the CLA |
I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA |
Unit Tests Summary 1 files 29 suites 24s ⏱️ Results for commit 72e414e. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Code Coverage Summary
Diff against main
Results for commit: 72e414e Minimum allowed coverage is ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@llrs-roche this needs a NEWS entry
Hey, I left a comment in the main issue #623 (comment) |
Co-authored-by: Marcin <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lluís Revilla <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@llrs-roche left you two comments, once they are accepted (the ones about workflows) you are free to merge
Co-authored-by: Marcin <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lluís Revilla <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marcin <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lluís Revilla <[email protected]>
Pull Request
Fixes #623
After 1 year with an error and with
verify()
in place, it makes sense to remove them.I didn't keep any documentation or redirect users to other functions/examples, (but it is hard for me to guess if users might not know how to update their code).
The checks will fail due to #629