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

Remove pass for abstract methods for codecov #730

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Apr 28, 2020
Merged

Conversation

angela97lin
Copy link
Contributor

@angela97lin angela97lin commented Apr 28, 2020

Although using pass for abstract methods allowed codecov to pass on my branch for #711, it seems to have caused codecov tests to fail on master.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 28, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #730 into master will increase coverage by 0.21%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #730      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   99.07%   99.29%   +0.21%     
==========================================
  Files         140      140              
  Lines        4992     4981      -11     
==========================================
  Hits         4946     4946              
+ Misses         46       35      -11     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
evalml/objectives/objective_base.py 100.00% <ø> (+17.39%) ⬆️
evalml/pipelines/components/component_base.py 94.11% <ø> (+5.22%) ⬆️
...valml/pipelines/components/estimators/estimator.py 83.33% <ø> (+3.33%) ⬆️
evalml/pipelines/pipeline_base.py 100.00% <ø> (+0.48%) ⬆️
evalml/tuners/tuner.py 100.00% <ø> (+23.07%) ⬆️

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 5dabe7e...80136f2. Read the comment docs.

@angela97lin angela97lin changed the title Remove pass for abstract method for codecov Remove pass for abstract methods for codecov Apr 28, 2020
@angela97lin angela97lin marked this pull request as ready for review Apr 28, 2020
@angela97lin angela97lin requested a review from dsherry Apr 28, 2020
@angela97lin
Copy link
Contributor Author

angela97lin commented Apr 28, 2020

@dsherry Looks like we might need to remove the pass statements after all? Otherwise, we could accept our current codecov for readability sake?

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ class Estimator(ComponentBase):
@classmethod
@abstractmethod
def supported_problem_types(cls):
pass
"""Problem types this estimator supports"""
Copy link
Collaborator

@dsherry dsherry Apr 28, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice 👍

Copy link
Collaborator

@dsherry dsherry left a comment

@angela97lin oh I see this PR increased codecov a bit. So that means using pass in the last PR didn't actually change anything? 😂 Yeah this looks great. Thanks for following up on this!

@angela97lin
Copy link
Contributor Author

angela97lin commented Apr 28, 2020

@dsherry Yeah, looks like pass didn't do anything, was weird that it passed on my branch but not on master. 🤔

@angela97lin angela97lin merged commit 4dada93 into master Apr 28, 2020
2 checks passed
@dsherry
Copy link
Collaborator

dsherry commented Apr 28, 2020

@angela97lin yeah, that's so weird. I now see the failed codecov master run you're talking about. Glad we've fixed it.

Actually, this is making me think there's a problem with the codecov bot for the PR checkin tests. I'm going to file an issue for that.

@dsherry
Copy link
Collaborator

dsherry commented Apr 28, 2020

@angela97lin : I filed #731 for this issue

@dsherry dsherry deleted the fix_codecov_ange branch Oct 29, 2020
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.

None yet

2 participants