-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
run clang-format in CI #1692
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
run clang-format in CI #1692
Conversation
2d55bbd
to
bc11374
Compare
Capybara summary for PR 1692
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Clang-Tidy
found issue(s) with the introduced code (1/1)
src/benchmarks/reconstruction/tracking_efficiency/TrackingEfficiency_processor.cc
Show resolved
Hide resolved
4cd19d9
to
8d654db
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can't be done in this PR, but we should add the squash commit to the git blame ignore file in a follow up commit since this touches so many files.
And I approve of this change.
e440a3b
to
3f7fb58
Compare
70f6154
to
a2dfc11
Compare
febd1bb
to
ca2d542
Compare
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Backport failed for Please cherry-pick the changes locally and resolve any conflicts. git fetch origin v1.24
git worktree add -d .worktree/backport-1692-to-v1.24 origin/v1.24
cd .worktree/backport-1692-to-v1.24
git switch --create backport-1692-to-v1.24
git cherry-pick -x 06934917acc0fc01b364b53cd25f23764dc2dfe4 |
Briefly, what does this PR introduce?
This is like eic/epic#705
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?
Yes, current PR's will have to be rebased, however there is a procedure to do edits fully automated.
Does this PR change default behavior?
No