Fix typo in find_isomorphisms_between_open_kwarg_dataflow_graphs#1638
Merged
lockshaw merged 1 commit intoflexflow:masterfrom Mar 25, 2026
Merged
Fix typo in find_isomorphisms_between_open_kwarg_dataflow_graphs#1638lockshaw merged 1 commit intoflexflow:masterfrom
lockshaw merged 1 commit intoflexflow:masterfrom
Conversation
lockshaw
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2026
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1638 +/- ##
==============================
==============================
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This looks like a typo on
find_isomorphisms_between_open_kwarg_dataflow_graphs, or at least it appears to break the pattern of the other bidict passed into the function here (and also just wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense as written).Passes local tests with the fix.
If I understand the impact it would potentially create false negatives (i.e., missing legitimate errors) but cannot create false positives (making working code look like it fails). So I guess it's good that the test suite passes, which would seem to indicate we haven't missed anything because of this.
However, there is likely inadequate test coverage because we missed this, and I haven't made any attempt so far to chase down what test case would be required to actually exercise the fix.
This change is