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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Do not assume "method" keyword argument specified in vdWHandler 0.3 #1689

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Aug 8, 2023
Merged

Do not assume "method" keyword argument specified in vdWHandler 0.3 #1689

merged 3 commits into from Aug 8, 2023

Conversation

mattwthompson
Copy link
Member

@mattwthompson mattwthompson commented Aug 7, 2023 •
edited

Resolves #1688; I named the branch wrong and don't care to fix it.

@mattwthompson mattwthompson mentioned this pull request Aug 7, 2023
Closed
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 7, 2023 •
edited

Codecov Report

Merging #1689 (08ec11c) into main (7b94401) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@mattwthompson mattwthompson marked this pull request as ready for review August 7, 2023 17:32
j-wags
j-wags approved these changes Aug 8, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@j-wags j-wags left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch. Thanks @mattwthompson!

@j-wags j-wags merged commit 91120f4 into main Aug 8, 2023
11 of 13 checks passed
@j-wags j-wags deleted the fix-1668 branch August 8, 2023 15:52
@mattwthompson
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the quick turnaround!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@j-wags j-wags j-wags approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

vdWHandler 0.4 does not assume a default value of method in up-conversion
2 participants
@mattwthompson @j-wags