Skip to content

Conversation

zain-sohail
Copy link
Member

Next step is to fix the lint errors in tests. For that we should also consider if we want same level of lint errors as for base module or not.

Further step is to introduce ruff instead of pylint.

Closes #255

Next step is to fix the lint errors in tests. For that we should also consider if we want same level of lint errors as for base module or not. 

Further step is to introduce ruff instead of pylint. 

Closes #255
@coveralls
Copy link
Collaborator

coveralls commented Nov 13, 2023

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 6851839863

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • 2 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-0.04%) to 90.391%

Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
sed/binning/binning.py 1 96.62%
sed/binning/utils.py 1 83.93%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 6848896105: -0.04%
Covered Lines: 4920
Relevant Lines: 5443

💛 - Coveralls

@zain-sohail zain-sohail mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2023
@zain-sohail zain-sohail deleted the linting-tests branch May 17, 2024 11:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

linting errors
2 participants