Khadija Saho work for CG11#1623
Conversation
|
@Khadijasaho First, I want to apologize for the delay in responding to this PR due to recent issues. Thank you for this contribution. OED's records do not indicate that you have signed the CLA but the box is checked in the PR description. Could you either do it or let me know that you think OED's records are incorrect. Also, OED needs you to add to the description or via a comment that either you did all the work by yourself or give the names/GitHub IDs for anyone else involved. Once this is done, the PR can be reviewed. Please let me know if anything is not clear. |
|
@huss, I have signed the OED CLA, I think it probably did;t go through. I also added my summary of what the test I added does and what I have added. |
@Khadijasaho Thank you for the updates and I see your CLA. Your description uses "I" but I just want to verify whether this was only your work or if someone else was involved since often they are done by teams. Thanks. |
|
Yes, on my own. I have a delay due to a conflict in school and a personal issue in completing my part. @huss |
|
This was somewhat out of date with the development branch so I merger that to get rid of the startup issue that was recently merged. No merge conflicts and I pushed the merge to the PR. |
huss
left a comment
huss
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Khadijasaho That you for this contribution. Review and testing found it works as desired. I made one small comment to consider but this is almost ready to merge. Please let me know if anything is not clear or you have thoughts.
| @@ -267,6 +267,73 @@ mocha.describe('readings API', () => { | |||
|
|
|||
| // Add CG11 here | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please remove this placeholder comment since you added the test.
|
@Khadijasaho It has been a little while since my last comment. I wanted to check on the status. Thanks. |
|
@huss I have tryied remove it but it seems like someone is work on that file. It's now allow me to remove the placeholder so some reason, there are two version of CG11 |
|
@Khadijasaho I looked into the situation. The reason there are two versions is because PR #1621 came after this PR and was merged. Thus, I suspect you saw the merge conflict when you pulled development. I did not notice there were two PRs for the same test case. I'm trying to resolve who was actually assigned this test case so it might be clear whose code should remain. If you have information that might be helpful. Now, a quick look found that your second to last commit removed the placeholder comment as requested. Your last commit seems to have remaining merge conflicts and it brought in a lot of new code in many files. I plan to wait to see what to do until I figure out whose code should be included. I suggest you do the same. I can appreciate this is frustrating but know I am working to resolve this. Then I can be more concrete about what should be done. |
@Khadijasaho I'm waiting on information from someone at another organization to try to understand why two people did the same test case. I also have no input from you. Thus, this is on hold until I get more information. I wanted you to know why it is not moving forward. |
|
I have no idea why there were two people assigned. I don’t want this
to affect my fellowship I have fulfill my expectations for my
internships fellowship with codeday. I have just started my internship this
summer now don’t have the bandwidth to re done this again. I was told I was
suppose to complete an exit survey but I haven’t received it yet. Please
let me know how to proceed.
Khadija Saho
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/khadija-saho-24231a236>
***@***.*** | 206-483-7830
…On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 11:09 AM Steven Huss-Lederman < ***@***.***> wrote:
*huss* left a comment (OpenEnergyDashboard/OED#1623)
<#1623 (comment)>
'm trying to resolve who was actually assigned this test case so it might
be clear whose code should remain. If you have information that might be
helpful.
@Khadijasaho <https://github.com/Khadijasaho> I'm waiting on information
from someone at another organization to try to understand why two people
did the same test case. I also have no input from you. Thus, this is on
hold until I get more information. I wanted you to know why it is not
moving forward.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1623?email_source=notifications&email_token=A7DVP5K6TIRXGYCG4HFGIGD47QMJBA5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTINRZGI2TCOJXGA22M4TFMFZW63VHNVSW45DJN5XKKZLWMVXHJLDGN5XXIZLSL5RWY2LDNM#issuecomment-4692519705>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A7DVP5NOSQ4PHISXI5YQ5CT47QMJBAVCNFSNUABEKJSXA33TNF2G64TZHM3TCOBRGQYDKMB3JFZXG5LFHM2DIMJUGIZTKNRWGGQXMAQ>
.
Triage notifications, keep track of coding agent tasks and review pull
requests on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://github.com/notifications/mobile/ios/A7DVP5JYFWI6LPL672YVPQL47QMJBA5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTINRZGI2TCOJXGA22M4TFMFZW63VHNVSW45DJN5XKKZLWMVXHJKTGN5XXIZLSL5UW64Y>
and Android
<https://github.com/notifications/mobile/android/A7DVP5J4NTVQEXM6SF4OEPL47QMJBA5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTINRZGI2TCOJXGA22M4TFMFZW63VHNVSW45DJN5XKKZLWMVXHJLTGN5XXIZLSL5QW4ZDSN5UWI>.
Download it today!
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
@Khadijasaho I am waiting to hear from CodeDay about what they know and that is what my previous message meant (without naming the organization). Thus, they are aware there is an issue. In the past it has been resolved without a problem for the people involved. I don't want you to worry at this time and I'll comment again when I have more information. II appreciate you providing information and I don't think there is anything you need to do right now in terms of this PR. f you need anything before I resolve this then please let me know. |
2 participants
Description
(Please include a summary of the change and which issue is touched on. Please also include relevant motivation and context.)
I completed the CG11 task assigned to me, and I worked on it on my own.
What this test does:
CG11 verifies that the compare readings API correctly returns energy data for a group when using a reverse unit conversion path (MJ → kWh) to display values in BTU. It checks a 1 day shift ending at 2022-10-31 17:00 using 15 minute reading intervals.
What I added:
Defined unit u3 (MJ) and unit u16 (BTU)
Defined conversion c6 (MJ → kWh, slope 1/3.6), the reverse direction of the standard kWh → MJ conversion
Defined conversion c3 (MJ → BTU, slope 947.8)
Loaded all units and conversions alongside the standard unitDatakWh and conversionDatakWh
Queried the compare readings API for a group with BTU as the display unit
Fixes #[issue]
(In general, OED likes to have at least one issue associated with each pull request. Replace [issue] with the OED GitHub issue number. In the preview you will see an issue description if you hover over that number. You can create one yourself before doing this pull request. This is where details are normally given on what is being addressed. Note you should not use the word "Fixes" if it does not completely address the issue since the issue would automatically be closed on merging the pull request. In that case use "Partly Addresses #[issue].)
Type of change
(Check the ones that apply by placing an "x" instead of the space in the [ ] so it becomes [x])
Checklist
(Note what you have done by placing an "x" instead of the space in the [ ] so it becomes [x]. It is hoped you do all of them.)
Limitations
(Describe any issues that remain or work that should still be done.)