ci: Fix Python docs build #18605
Merged
ci: Fix Python docs build #18605
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
github-actions
bot
added
internal
MarcoGorelli
requested review from
ritchie46,
c-peters,
alexander-beedie and
reswqa
as code owners
MarcoGorelli
force-pushed
the
fix-doc-build
branch
from
6fca85c
to
b456d55
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #18605 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 79.94% 79.92% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 1505 1505
Lines 202618 202618
Branches 2873 2873
==========================================
- Hits 161979 161950 -29
- Misses 40091 40120 +29
Partials 548 548 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Thanks a lot for the fix! |
|
Oops 😅. Thanks for the fix 👍 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
@nameexhaustion I think this may have been changed accidentally as part of #18566 ?