feat: test: add coverage for add_extra_session_options - #187
Conversation
Co-authored-by: n24q02m <135627235+n24q02m@users.noreply.github.com>
|
👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.Scanned FilesNone |
Co-authored-by: n24q02m <135627235+n24q02m@users.noreply.github.com>
🎯 What:
Added unit tests for
add_extra_session_optionsinqwen3_embed/common/onnx_model.pywhich was missing test coverage.📊 Coverage:
enable_cpu_mem_arenatoTrueandFalse).ValueErrorwhen an invalid option is provided).✨ Result:
Improved test coverage and safety for the
OnnxModeloption configuration logic.PR created automatically by Jules for task 17211056917102681007 started by @n24q02m