Feat/35 multiple portfolios #96
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #96 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 18.35% 18.35%
=======================================
Files 4 4
Lines 414 414
=======================================
Hits 76 76
Misses 338 338 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Docker build status
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Adds support for multiple portfolio files being processed as a single logical portfolio ("portfolio groups")
Closes #35
Notes to reviewers:
The test portfolio files (section_1 and section_2) together should be equivalent to
default_portfolio, and so the testing pipeline included here should emit comparable results.I'm guessing this will need some close inspection for review, which is why I've tagged @cjyetman and @Antoine-Lalechere as suggested reviewers (sine they know the expected outputs best).