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

3 participants