New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixed statsmodels incorrect import (code & doc) #391

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Apr 21, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@ianozsvald
Contributor

ianozsvald commented Apr 21, 2018

After my recent code contribution I hadn't added the necessary import and the one used in the code was wrong (statsmodels has 2 ways of doing things). My colleague @robmarkcole fixed the code, I added a line 1 doc fix. The local test passes.

@DistrictDataLabs/team-oz-maintainers

robmarkcole and others added some commits Apr 21, 2018

@bbengfort bbengfort added the review label Apr 21, 2018

@ianozsvald

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ianozsvald commented Apr 21, 2018

Should we have committed the 3 images?

@bbengfort

This comment has been minimized.

Member

bbengfort commented Apr 21, 2018

Yes, sort of, but we don't commit the actual_images, we commit the baseline_images (actual_images is in tests/.gitignore) -- to sync actual with baseline run:

$ python -m tests.images tests/test_contrib/test_statsmodels/test_base.py

This should copy everything from actual_images to baseline_images.

@bbengfort

This comment has been minimized.

Member

bbengfort commented Apr 21, 2018

@ianozsvald sorry now I see that the images committed were test base images -- so no, those shouldn't have been committed; would you mind removing them?

@ianozsvald

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ianozsvald commented Apr 21, 2018

3 images removed and push, how do we look now?

@bbengfort

Golden! Thanks for fixing this!

@bbengfort bbengfort merged commit b42b9f1 into DistrictDataLabs:develop Apr 21, 2018

2 of 3 checks passed

lgtm analysis: Python Running analyses for revisions
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
coverage/coveralls Coverage remained the same at 83.701%
Details

@bbengfort bbengfort removed the review label Apr 21, 2018

@ianozsvald

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ianozsvald commented Apr 21, 2018

Much obliged to @robmarkcole for his addition, cheers both!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment