Skip to content

Conversation

@smereu
Copy link
Contributor

@smereu smereu commented Dec 3, 2025

Description

V1 implementation of repair tools. Notes

  1. The return argument from the tracker were inconsistent between calls and were bringing outside in the service layer historical names (tracker_response vs complete_command_response) that is better to keep into v0. Some small changes were made to the v0 to eliminate the problem
  2. The return argument of functions (repair and others) that modify data in an unknown way needs to be made consistent but we can tackle that topic separately from v1 creation
  3. More stuff was put into conversions.py. Definitely needs a clean-up...

Issue linked

Please mention the issue number or describe the problem this pull request addresses.

Checklist

  • I have tested my changes locally.
  • I have added necessary documentation or updated existing documentation.
  • I have followed the coding style guidelines of this project.
  • I have added appropriate unit tests.
  • I have reviewed my changes before submitting this pull request.
  • I have linked the issue or issues that are solved to the PR if any.
  • I have assigned this PR to myself.
  • I have added the minimum version decorator to any new backend method implemented.
  • I have made sure that the title of my PR follows Conventional commits style (e.g. feat: extrude circle to cylinder)

pyansys-ci-bot and others added 26 commits February 17, 2025 14:31
V1 implementation of repair tools.  Notes
1) The return argument from the tracker were inconsistent between calls and were bringing outside in the service layer historical names (tracker_response vs complete_command_response) that is better to keep into v0. Some small changes were made to the v0 to eliminate the problem
2) The return argument of functions (repair and others) that modify data in an unknown way needs to be made consistent but we can tackle that topic separately from v1 creation
3) More stuff was put into conversions.py. Definitely needs a clean-up...
@github-actions github-actions bot added maintenance Package and maintenance related and removed maintenance Package and maintenance related labels Dec 5, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added maintenance Package and maintenance related and removed maintenance Package and maintenance related labels Dec 5, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added maintenance Package and maintenance related and removed maintenance Package and maintenance related labels Dec 5, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added maintenance Package and maintenance related and removed maintenance Package and maintenance related labels Dec 5, 2025
Copy link
Member

@RobPasMue RobPasMue left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM - but letting @jacobrkerstetter do the final approval since he has already reviewed this in depth

@jacobrkerstetter jacobrkerstetter self-requested a review December 8, 2025 12:16
@github-actions github-actions bot added maintenance Package and maintenance related and removed maintenance Package and maintenance related labels Dec 8, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added maintenance Package and maintenance related and removed maintenance Package and maintenance related labels Dec 8, 2025
@jacobrkerstetter jacobrkerstetter enabled auto-merge (squash) December 8, 2025 12:30
@jacobrkerstetter jacobrkerstetter merged commit faf079a into main Dec 8, 2025
49 of 50 checks passed
@jacobrkerstetter jacobrkerstetter deleted the ci/v1-implementation-of-repair-stub branch December 8, 2025 13:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

maintenance Package and maintenance related

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants