Skip to content
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

Fix uvh5 reader to check for phase_center_catalog not multi_phase_center #1225

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 28, 2022

Conversation

bhazelton
Copy link
Member

Description

Fixes a mismatch between the reader and the documentation where the reader was looking for a boolean (multi_phase_center) to indicate that the phase_center_catalog was present rather than just looking for that
header item.

Motivation and Context

fixes #1224

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation change (documentation changes only)
  • Version change
  • Build or continuous integration change

Checklist:

Bug fix checklist:

  • My fix includes a new test that breaks as a result of the bug (if possible).
  • All new and existing tests pass.
  • I have updated the CHANGELOG.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 17, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #1225 (c9f40a1) into main (e76516a) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1225      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.93%   99.93%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          33       33              
  Lines       18065    18062       -3     
==========================================
- Hits        18054    18051       -3     
  Misses         11       11              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pyuvdata/uvdata/uvh5.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e76516a...c9f40a1. Read the comment docs.

@bhazelton
Copy link
Member Author

The codecov failure is just because I removed code so the denominator of the percent coverage went down, so not really a concern.

Copy link
Member

@plaplant plaplant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great, thanks @bhazelton!

@plaplant plaplant merged commit 406f36c into main Nov 28, 2022
@plaplant plaplant deleted the fix_uvh5_1.1 branch November 28, 2022 22:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Implementing V1.1
2 participants