• Home
  • Features
  • Pricing
  • Docs
  • Announcements
  • Sign In

sapcc / limes / 15206244542 / 1
79%
master: 80%

Build:
Build:
LAST BUILD BRANCH: gomm-remove-coveralls
DEFAULT BRANCH: master
Ran 23 May 2025 08:49AM UTC
Files 68
Run time 1s
Badge
Embed ▾
README BADGES
x

If you need to use a raster PNG badge, change the '.svg' to '.png' in the link

Markdown

Textile

RDoc

HTML

Rst

23 May 2025 08:47AM UTC coverage: 79.115% (+0.007%) from 79.108%
15206244542.1

Pull #723

github

majewsky
simplify CanAcceptCommitmentChanges()

The previous implementation had a somewhat complicated exception case,
where the comment said "what this does is to check that usedCapacity
does not increase". This is a very weird situation: Why use a complex
condition when the condition in the comment is much easier to implement?
This commit does just that.

This came out of a conversation with a customer, who is trying to move
an unused commitment to another project on an AZ resource that is
overbooked (i.e. `usedCapacity > capacity`). Since the commitment is
unused in the donor project, this should be completely fine because
`usedCapacity` does not increase, but the previous implementation
rejected this change because it does not fall into its specific
exception case.
Pull Request #723: simplify CanAcceptCommitmentChanges()

6440 of 8140 relevant lines covered (79.12%)

48.37 hits per line

Source Files on job 15206244542.1
  • Tree
  • List 68
  • Changed 1
  • Source Changed 0
  • Coverage Changed 1
Coverage ∆ File Lines Relevant Covered Missed Hits/Line
  • Back to Build 15206244542
  • 963932d4 on github
  • Prev Job for on simplify-commitment-acceptance-check (#15202538847.1)
STATUS · Troubleshooting · Open an Issue · Sales · Support · CAREERS · ENTERPRISE · START FREE · SCHEDULE DEMO
ANNOUNCEMENTS · TWITTER · TOS & SLA · Supported CI Services · What's a CI service? · Automated Testing

© 2026 Coveralls, Inc