Skip to content

fix: remove inexistent style#8631

Merged
tommasini merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/remove-inexistent-style
Feb 20, 2024
Merged

fix: remove inexistent style#8631
tommasini merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/remove-inexistent-style

Conversation

@tommasini

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

This PR removes an inexistent style property.

Related issues

Fixes:

Manual testing steps

  1. Go to this page...

Screenshots/Recordings

Before

After

Pre-merge author checklist

  • I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
  • I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved.
  • I've linked related issues
  • I've included manual testing steps
  • I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable
  • I’ve included tests if applicable
  • I’ve documented my code using JSDoc format if applicable
  • I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines). Not required for external contributors.
  • I’ve properly set the pull request status:
    • In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft".
    • In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft".

Pre-merge reviewer checklist

  • I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed).
  • I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.

@tommasini tommasini requested a review from a team as a code owner February 19, 2024 21:35
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes.

@tommasini tommasini added team-mobile-platform Mobile Platform team needs-dev-review PR needs reviews from other engineers (in order to receive required approvals) Spot Check on the Release Build If a ticket doesn't require feature QA, but does require some form of manual spot checking labels Feb 19, 2024
@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (6788c2e) 41.10% compared to head (87fc1e8) 41.10%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8631   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   41.10%   41.10%           
=======================================
  Files        1248     1248           
  Lines       30417    30417           
  Branches     2969     2969           
=======================================
  Hits        12504    12504           
  Misses      17165    17165           
  Partials      748      748           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@sonarqubecloud

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarCloud

@tommasini tommasini merged commit 48b1f97 into main Feb 20, 2024
@tommasini tommasini deleted the fix/remove-inexistent-style branch February 20, 2024 18:46
@github-actions github-actions Bot removed the needs-dev-review PR needs reviews from other engineers (in order to receive required approvals) label Feb 20, 2024
@github-actions github-actions Bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 20, 2024
@metamaskbot metamaskbot added the release-7.18.0 Issue or pull request that will be included in release 7.18.0 label Feb 20, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

release-7.18.0 Issue or pull request that will be included in release 7.18.0 Spot Check on the Release Build If a ticket doesn't require feature QA, but does require some form of manual spot checking team-mobile-platform Mobile Platform team

Projects

Archived in project

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants