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] handle case when dummy_scans is 0 #438

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 7, 2019

Conversation

jdkent
Copy link
Collaborator

@jdkent jdkent commented Dec 6, 2019

fixes #437

adds tests to confirm functionality.

- add tests to check expected behavior
@jdkent jdkent requested a review from oesteban December 6, 2019 20:19
@pull-assistant
Copy link

pull-assistant bot commented Dec 6, 2019

Score: 0.88

Best reviewed: commit by commit


Optimal code review plan (1 warning)

handle case when dummy_scans is 0

niworkflows/func/util.py 50% changes removed in Apply suggestions fr...

     Apply suggestions from code review

Powered by Pull Assistant. Last update 84c99d6 ... 748e726. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@oesteban oesteban left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry, I did not think that zero would be evaluated to False. Just an stylistic nitpick.

niworkflows/func/util.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
niworkflows/func/util.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 6, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #438 into master will decrease coverage by 5.08%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #438      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   59.93%   54.84%   -5.09%     
==========================================
  Files          57       42      -15     
  Lines        5443     4801     -642     
  Branches      643      644       +1     
==========================================
- Hits         3262     2633     -629     
+ Misses       2138     2049      -89     
- Partials       43      119      +76
Flag Coverage Δ
#masks ?
#reportlettests ?
#unittests ?
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
niworkflows/func/util.py 28% <100%> (-50.09%) ⬇️
niworkflows/interfaces/fixes.py 41.17% <0%> (-45.1%) ⬇️
niworkflows/interfaces/ants.py 57.81% <0%> (-16.15%) ⬇️
niworkflows/engine/workflows.py 26.31% <0%> (-15.79%) ⬇️
niworkflows/interfaces/bids.py 80.15% <0%> (-15.48%) ⬇️
niworkflows/interfaces/utility.py 75.47% <0%> (-13.21%) ⬇️
niworkflows/utils/bids.py 75.94% <0%> (-12.81%) ⬇️
niworkflows/interfaces/itk.py 28.39% <0%> (-10.5%) ⬇️
niworkflows/interfaces/registration.py 51.72% <0%> (-10.35%) ⬇️
... and 23 more

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 5e833f9...748e726. Read the comment docs.

style change

Co-Authored-By: Oscar Esteban <code@oscaresteban.es>
@effigies
Copy link
Member

effigies commented Dec 6, 2019

LGTM. Obviously correct, so I'm +1 for merging without waiting on tests.

@oesteban oesteban merged commit fe3eaea into nipreps:master Dec 7, 2019
@effigies effigies mentioned this pull request Dec 7, 2019
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.

_pass_dummy_scans returns wrong value when dummy_scans set to 0
3 participants