Fix Typographical Error Update compute_resources.py #779
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary of Change:
This pull request addresses a small typographical error in the regular expression pattern within the
get_resource_usage
function.Original Code:
r"ef_testing::models::result: (.*) passed: .?ResourcesMapping\((.*)\)"
Corrected Code:
r"ef_testing::models::result: (.*) passed: ResourcesMapping\((.*)\)"
Reason for Change:
The dot (
.
) in the original regular expression.?ResourcesMapping
is unnecessary and likely a typo. It matches zero or one character before theResourcesMapping
text, which could cause incorrect matches. The intended pattern should directly match "passed:" followed byResourcesMapping
, without allowing any characters in between. Removing the dot ensures that the pattern matches the exact string "passed: ResourcesMapping" correctly.Impact:
This change is important because it ensures the regular expression behaves as expected, leading to more accurate parsing of the output. Without this correction, the regular expression could match unwanted results or fail to properly capture the intended data, potentially leading to issues in further processing or inaccurate results.
Please check the type of change your PR introduces:
Does this introduce a breaking change?