Fix conditional statements for if OnDemandFVs exist - #1937
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Cody Lin <codyl@twitter.com>
|
Hi @codyjlin. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a feast-dev member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/kind bug |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1937 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 82.27% 59.39% -22.89%
===========================================
Files 96 96
Lines 7669 7669
===========================================
- Hits 6310 4555 -1755
- Misses 1359 3114 +1755
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
/lgtm |
|
@mavysavydav: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: adchia, codyjlin The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Signed-off-by: Cody Lin <codyl@twitter.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Lin codyl@twitter.com
What this PR does / why we need it:
There's an inconsistency for checking whether there are
self.on_demand_feature_views- if this value is an empty list[]as returned byon_demand_feature_view.get_requested_odfvs(like here), then the old conditional statements are wrong.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Small bugfix, no issue
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: