Skip to content

Conversation

@singleton11
Copy link
Contributor

That option which has to be applied (by merged PR) didn't work,
therefore I left the first option

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jan 12, 2017

Current coverage is 55.48% (diff: 100%)

Merging #58 into master will not change coverage

@@             master        #58   diff @@
==========================================
  Files            13         13          
  Lines           766        766          
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches          0          0          
==========================================
  Hits            425        425          
  Misses          341        341          
  Partials          0          0          

Powered by Codecov. Last update 23af29a...e9636f2

@vdboor
Copy link
Member

vdboor commented Feb 18, 2017

I've updated the README, thanks for highlighting that!

I'm not sure what you try to do by moving the @transaction.atomic inside the function as with transaction.atomic(). Is there any difference for you?

@vdboor vdboor closed this Feb 18, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants