Skip to content

Conversation

@clmould
Copy link
Collaborator

@clmould clmould commented Dec 18, 2025

Description

Closes #3554

Checklist

I confirm that I have completed the following checks:

  • My changes follow the PROCESS style guide
  • I have justified any large differences in the regression tests caused by this pull request in the comments.
  • I have added new tests where appropriate for the changes I have made.
  • If I have had to change any existing unit or integration tests, I have justified this change in the pull request comments.
  • If I have made documentation changes, I have checked they render correctly.
  • I have added documentation for my change, if appropriate.

@clmould clmould linked an issue Dec 18, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@clmould clmould requested a review from timothy-nunn December 18, 2025 16:30
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Dec 18, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 42.74%. Comparing base (25480ae) to head (4698b7f).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4020      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   45.89%   42.74%   -3.16%     
==========================================
  Files         123      123              
  Lines       29064    32648    +3584     
==========================================
+ Hits        13340    13954     +614     
- Misses      15724    18694    +2970     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@clmould clmould requested a review from timothy-nunn January 5, 2026 10:57
@timothy-nunn
Copy link
Collaborator

@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn requested a review from ajpearcey January 7, 2026 09:15
Copy link
Collaborator

@ajpearcey ajpearcey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The burn time in this file drops from 2.11 hours to 1.4 hours. I will investigate why, I'm not comfortable adding this to the tracker until we understand this change.

@timothy-nunn
Copy link
Collaborator

The burn time in this file drops from 2.11 hours to 1.4 hours. I will investigate why, I'm not comfortable adding this to the tracker until we understand this change.

👍. Is there a constraint we can use to get the burn time back up? Or is already a constraint that is being violated.

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.

Add Low Aspect Ratio DEMO case to the tracker

5 participants