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

Add literal APIs for PrecisionTimestamps #47

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Aug 21, 2024

Conversation

scgkiran
Copy link
Contributor

@scgkiran scgkiran commented Aug 14, 2024

Only last commit needs to be reviewed. Other changes are part of PR #43

Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 14, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.69369% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 53.40%. Comparing base (e77df67) to head (aafa57b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
expr/literals.go 80.95% 4 Missing ⚠️
literal/decimal_util.go 90.24% 2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
literal/utils.go 96.52% 3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
types/precison_timestamp_types.go 95.55% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #47      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   52.31%   53.40%   +1.08%     
==========================================
  Files          21       23       +2     
  Lines        6013     6179     +166     
==========================================
+ Hits         3146     3300     +154     
- Misses       2678     2687       +9     
- Partials      189      192       +3     

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

@jacques-n
Copy link
Contributor

This is still marked as draft. Should this be marked ready for review?

@scgkiran scgkiran marked this pull request as ready for review August 20, 2024 01:51
@jacques-n
Copy link
Contributor

It looks like this has a merge conflict. I probably won't be able to review and tomorrow but it would be good if you fixed that so if it is good to go, I can merge it. Thanks

@scgkiran
Copy link
Contributor Author

It looks like this has a merge conflict. I probably won't be able to review and tomorrow but it would be good if you fixed that so if it is good to go, I can merge it. Thanks

Done

@jacques-n jacques-n merged commit 597afdb into substrait-io:main Aug 21, 2024
8 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.

2 participants