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

Fix change of behaviour on execute introduced in #363 #364

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 20, 2019

Conversation

ajkavanagh
Copy link
Contributor

Essentially, the behavior changed for when a caller to the
container's execute method wished to handle the packets received back on
the websocket. This change fixes the reversion.

Signed-off-by: Alex Kavanagh alex.kavanagh@canonical.com

Essentially, the behavior changed for when a caller to the
container's execute method wished to handle the packets received back on
the websocket.  This change fixes the reversion.

Signed-off-by: Alex Kavanagh <alex.kavanagh@canonical.com>
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented May 17, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #364 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #364   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.44%   96.44%           
=======================================
  Files          12       12           
  Lines        1042     1042           
  Branches      120      120           
=======================================
  Hits         1005     1005           
  Misses         16       16           
  Partials       21       21
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pylxd/models/container.py 90.18% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

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 765eacc...f99f6c6. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@ChrisMacNaughton ChrisMacNaughton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks

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