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

Check for every().day().at() #90

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 31, 2018
Merged

Conversation

runz0rd
Copy link
Contributor

@runz0rd runz0rd commented Oct 31, 2018

Description

Added a check if every().day().at() events are running correctly (instead of defaulting to next day)

Motivation and Context

For #83

Types of changes

Put an x in all boxes that apply

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

Put an x in all boxes that apply
If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help!

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • I have added/updated docstrings to the code I have touched.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.
  • I have updated the Changelog to reflect my changes
  • Has the changes been tested against a real Slack instance?

Copy link
Owner

@sedders123 sedders123 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for this! Looks great 😃

@sedders123 sedders123 closed this Oct 31, 2018
@sedders123 sedders123 merged commit d4f5382 into sedders123:develop Oct 31, 2018
sedders123 added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2018
sedders123 added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2018
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.

2 participants