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

show highest weight companies, not lowest in company bars #84

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 12, 2024

Conversation

cjyetman
Copy link
Member

This needs serious review and testing. Just getting a hypothetical fix down for review.

- closes #82 

This needs serious review and testing. Just getting a hypothetical fix down for review.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 11, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 0.81%. Comparing base (9a24a10) to head (25b8a6a).

Files Patch % Lines
R/prep_key_bars_company.R 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main     #84   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   0.81%   0.81%           
=====================================
  Files         25      25           
  Lines       1596    1596           
=====================================
  Hits          13      13           
  Misses      1583    1583           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

jdhoffa added a commit to RMI-PACTA/workflow.transition.monitor that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2024
…report

This PR is just meant to abuse our CI/CD so we can test  RMI-PACTA/pacta.portfolio.report#84

Do not merge!
@jdhoffa
Copy link
Member

jdhoffa commented Jun 11, 2024

@cjyetman cjyetman marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2024 08:40
@cjyetman cjyetman requested a review from MonikaFu as a code owner June 12, 2024 08:40
Copy link
Collaborator

@MonikaFu MonikaFu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking at the report that Jackson generated it looks good to me and like it worked. My question is in general what should be the testing procedure for the report from now on? Is checking a report generated by CI/CD and seeing the intended change a proof that what we implemented works?
This particular change seems like an easy one though, if we see it works as it uses a known dplyr function and changes only two lines of code resulting in a behavior that matches expectations. So LGTM.

@cjyetman cjyetman merged commit ce5accc into main Jun 12, 2024
10 checks passed
@cjyetman cjyetman deleted the highest-weight-companies-in-bars branch June 12, 2024 14:06
@cjyetman
Copy link
Member Author

Looking at the report that Jackson generated it looks good to me and like it worked. My question is in general what should be the testing procedure for the report from now on? Is checking a report generated by CI/CD and seeing the intended change a proof that what we implemented works?

This particular change seems like an easy one though, if we see it works as it uses a known dplyr function and changes only two lines of code resulting in a behavior that matches expectations. So LGTM.

Not sure there's a "right" answer, but I would assume that, as the maintainer, it's your choice how to test and what passes for adequate testing to merge something.

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.

future tech bar chart might show least important companies instead of most important
3 participants