ptuomola commented on pull request #1207:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1207#issuecomment-672784854
Sorry for the delay in looking into this - have been a bit busy! Will try to
look at this tonight...
This is
ptuomola commented on pull request #1238:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1238#issuecomment-672777409
@thesmallstar that makes sense to me. Either we have a default case to cover
all the cases not covered, or we require all cases to be covered explicitly. As
far as I can see,
vidakovic commented on pull request #1210:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1210#issuecomment-672770864
@avikganguly01 did you have a chance to review this PR? Just want to make
sure we have enough time before the release next week to test everything in the
develop branch
ptuomola commented on pull request #1237:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1237#issuecomment-672776509
@thesmallstar would be great to understand why this is different before we
merge, and then fix all in one go. Straightaway I can't see why this would be
different...
ptuomola commented on pull request #1242:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1242#issuecomment-672779492
Looking at this, the changes seem to fall into a couple of different
categories:
- ones where it makes sense - e.g. is_active to isActive
- ones where it in my
ptuomola commented on pull request #1240:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1240#issuecomment-672783910
LGTM
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to
ptuomola commented on pull request #1240:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1240#issuecomment-672784307
@thesmallstar Do you want me to wait until you have the second set ready and
then merge both together, or should I go ahead and merge this now?
ptuomola commented on pull request #1187:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1187#issuecomment-672791084
@vorburger I think we agreed this would not fix your null pointer exception,
but I still think it would be a good thing to do... your views?
renovate-bot opened a new pull request #1245:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1245
This PR contains the following updates:
| Package | Update | Change |
|---|---|---|
| org.flywaydb:flyway-core | patch | `6.5.3` -> `6.5.4` |
---
### Renovate
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
ptuomola pushed a commit to branch develop
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/fineract.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/develop by this push:
new f67a6a3 Update dependency
ptuomola merged pull request #1245:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1245
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go
edcable commented on pull request #1103:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1103#issuecomment-673150419
Thanks @ezolnbl.
@vorburger @ptuomola @awasum Zoltan created a ticket referencing this PR
and also addressed the merge conflict. It should be ready for review now.
ezolnbl commented on pull request #1103:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1103#issuecomment-673077570
>
>
> @ezolnbl we normally require an open FINERACT-xxx JIRA for Improvements or
Bug Fixes.
>
> Would you be willing to create one at
thesmallstar commented on pull request #1242:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1242#issuecomment-673077724
@ptuomola I thought not to make them static since they are used in that
class itself, I thought there is no use to make them static since they are not
used elsewhere if
thesmallstar commented on pull request #1240:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1240#issuecomment-673075612
@ptuomola please merge this, that way we can avoid merge conflicts.
This is an automated message from
15 matches
Mail list logo
