support OR operator in binary evaluate_bounds
#15716
Open
+96
−1
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
github-actions
bot
added
logical-expr
|
The failing tests were added in #14189 and #14735, both which talk about supporting OR as a future possibility. Ping @berkaysynnada as the reviewer / approver of both those PRs, does this PR look ok to you? If so I will update those tests so that CI is green here. |
|
Thank you @davidhewitt. I will review this today |
berkaysynnada
approved these changes
Apr 17, 2025
|
Failing tests should be fixed after taking a merge from main |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Which issue does this PR close?
apply_operatordoes not support OR #15715 .Rationale for this change
Seems like this should have worked as per the commentary in the issue.
What changes are included in this PR?
ORcase toapply_operatorevaluate_boundsAre these changes tested?
Yes
Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes (public function now supports additional operator)