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

Unify default values of arguments for all snapshot_base and snapshot methods in qcodes repo #1830

Closed

Conversation

astafan8
Copy link
Contributor

@astafan8 astafan8 commented Nov 20, 2019

Description

To promote "the same" behavior unless needed explicitly. (i think that it's good, but if there are use cases against that i'm happy to hear about those here)

Note that right before merging the commits in this PR will be rebased on the lastest master for a cleaner history :)

Places in question:

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 20, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #1830 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1830   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   70.37%   70.37%           
=======================================
  Files         152      152           
  Lines       18859    18859           
=======================================
  Hits        13272    13272           
  Misses       5587     5587

@astafan8
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jenshnielsen @Dominik-Vogel what do you think about this PR? also about the question in the description?

@astafan8 astafan8 added this to the v0.9.0 milestone Dec 2, 2019
... because these are all overrides of the Metadatable.snapshot_base
method, hence the default values should (probably) be the same.
... because these are all overrides of the Metadatable.snapshot
method, hence the default values should (probably) be the same.
@astafan8 astafan8 force-pushed the unify-snapshot-base-signature branch from 1c2face to 11c51dc Compare December 4, 2019 10:48
@jenshnielsen
Copy link
Collaborator

I need a bit of time to reevaluate the chaining before I can make my mind of if this

@astafan8 astafan8 modified the milestones: v0.9.0 cut, v0.10.0 cut Dec 5, 2019
@astafan8 astafan8 removed this from the v0.10.0 cut milestone Feb 20, 2020
@astafan8
Copy link
Contributor Author

closing in favor of #4808

@astafan8 astafan8 closed this Nov 16, 2022
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.

None yet

2 participants