Fix script_annotations_artifact_passing example #786
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Elliot Gunton <egunton@bloomberg.net>
elliotgunton
added
semver:patch
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #786 +/- ##
=====================================
Coverage 78.4% 78.4%
=====================================
Files 45 45
Lines 3643 3643
Branches 734 734
=====================================
Hits 2859 2859
Misses 587 587
Partials 197 197 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
samj1912
approved these changes
Sep 27, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull Request Checklist
Description of PR
Currently, the script annotation artifact passing example is wrong because it doesn't specify a Path in the input or use an ArtifactLoader. However, the path will not generally be used in the function, so in future we might populate this automatically.
The Script guide was correct, so didn't need to change anything there.