(closes #3392) Store commonblock name inside its interface - #3543
Open
sergisiso wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
(closes #3392) Store commonblock name inside its interface#3543sergisiso wants to merge 1 commit into
sergisiso wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Collaborator
Author
|
@arporter @LonelyCat124 This is ready for review, it is the ground work to then address #2554 |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3543 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 397 397
Lines 55577 55580 +3
=========================================
+ Hits 55577 55580 +3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This felt as a very natural way to implement the CommonBlocks, I don't know why it wasn't done like this in the first place.