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

fix: Fix existing javadoc comments #363

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 18, 2023

Conversation

m-rudyk
Copy link
Collaborator

@m-rudyk m-rudyk commented Dec 18, 2023

Pull Request

Description

Fix existing JavaDoc errors.

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • 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 not work as expected)
  • Code cleanup/refactoring
  • Documentation update
  • This change requires a documentation update
  • CI system update
  • Test Coverage update

Testing

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.

Test Configuration:

  • Java: v11
  • LPVS Release: v1.x.x

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • My code meets the required code coverage for lines (90% and above)
  • My code meets the required code coverage for branches (80% and above)
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

@m-rudyk m-rudyk force-pushed the m.rudyk/fix_javadoc branch from 79d735f to 274b694 Compare December 18, 2023 13:34
@o-kopysov o-kopysov changed the title Fix existing javadoc comments fix: Fix existing javadoc comments Dec 18, 2023
@m-rudyk m-rudyk changed the title fix: Fix existing javadoc comments Fix existing javadoc comments Dec 18, 2023
@m-rudyk m-rudyk changed the title Fix existing javadoc comments fix: Fix existing javadoc comments Dec 18, 2023
Signed-off-by: Mykola Rudyk <[email protected]>
@m-rudyk m-rudyk marked this pull request as ready for review December 18, 2023 14:03
@m-rudyk m-rudyk force-pushed the m.rudyk/fix_javadoc branch from 274b694 to 0066623 Compare December 18, 2023 14:04
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (2cfc37e) 91.01% compared to head (0066623) 91.01%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main     #363   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     91.01%   91.01%           
  Complexity      486      486           
=========================================
  Files            48       48           
  Lines          1703     1703           
  Branches        206      206           
=========================================
  Hits           1550     1550           
  Misses           89       89           
  Partials         64       64           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Collaborator

@o-kopysov o-kopysov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@o-kopysov o-kopysov added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation fix labels Dec 18, 2023
@o-kopysov o-kopysov added this to the v1.3.0 milestone Dec 18, 2023
@o-kopysov o-kopysov merged commit 7e89715 into Samsung:main Dec 18, 2023
7 checks passed
@m-rudyk m-rudyk deleted the m.rudyk/fix_javadoc branch February 13, 2024 15:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation fix
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants