Add unit-tests for destionations in /Names (NameTree) dictionaries where all entries are indirect objects #7128
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
…ere all entries are indirect objects Re: issue 6204 and PR 6208.
|
/botio unittest |
From: Bot.io (Linux)ReceivedCommand cmd_unittest from @timvandermeij received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://107.21.233.14:8877/fdb37b34890a7f9/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Windows)ReceivedCommand cmd_unittest from @timvandermeij received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://107.22.172.223:8877/27231e715d262a7/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Linux)SuccessFull output at http://107.21.233.14:8877/fdb37b34890a7f9/output.txt Total script time: 1.78 mins
|
From: Bot.io (Windows)SuccessFull output at http://107.22.172.223:8877/27231e715d262a7/output.txt Total script time: 1.90 mins
|
|
Thank you! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Re: issue #6204 and PR #6208.