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

Test Coverage for client defs (Second Round) #58

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 19, 2017

Conversation

juanpedromoreno
Copy link
Member

Fixes #24

Removes all superfluous code that's superseded by the frees-rpc macros.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Oct 18, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #58 into master will increase coverage by 7.05%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #58      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   26.56%   33.61%   +7.05%     
==========================================
  Files          13       12       -1     
  Lines         128      119       -9     
==========================================
+ Hits           34       40       +6     
+ Misses         94       79      -15
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
rpc/src/main/scala/client/package.scala 100% <0%> (+100%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 9ca9f0b...023672a. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@fedefernandez fedefernandez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

code looks good

@juanpedromoreno juanpedromoreno merged commit 6b0e926 into master Oct 19, 2017
@juanpedromoreno juanpedromoreno deleted the feature/test-coverage-client-defs-v2 branch October 19, 2017 07:18
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.

3 participants