Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Unified datetime field name - #925
Conversation
Oceania2018
commented
Mar 11, 2025
Thanks for you contribution! This PR is duplicate with previous one, can I close 922 and keep this one? |
zfchai
commented
Mar 12, 2025
This PR is duplicate with previous one, can I close #922 and keep this one? ok |
Oceania2018
commented
Mar 22, 2025
@zfchai Please help resolve the conflict. |
GGHansome
commented
Apr 3, 2025
Auto Review Result: Code Review SummaryChange Overview: The changes mainly involved renaming date properties from Identified IssuesIssue 1: Naming Consistency [Code Clarity]
Issue 2: Error Handling [Fault Tolerance]
Issue 3: Unnecessary Delays [Performance]
Overall EvaluationThe code changes improve naming consistency and add asynchronous processing capability, enhancing the overall scalability. However, further improvements can be made in terms of consistency checks across the project and fine-tuning performance aspects related to asynchronous task handling. Ensuring uniform naming and careful performance considerations will provide a cleaner, more efficient codebase. |
Updated info