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

Fixing and adding test for combine kwarg in reaction.add_metabolites #503

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 7, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@pstjohn
Contributor

pstjohn commented May 4, 2017

Previously using reaction.add_metabolites(*args, combine=False) in a model context would result in the wrong reaction being returned.

@pstjohn pstjohn added the ready label May 4, 2017

@codecov-io

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@codecov-io

codecov-io May 4, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #503 into devel will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           devel     #503      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage     69%   69.04%   +0.03%     
=========================================
  Files         64       64              
  Lines       8460     8469       +9     
  Branches    1443     1445       +2     
=========================================
+ Hits        5838     5847       +9     
  Misses      2366     2366              
  Partials     256      256
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
cobra/test/test_model.py 92.57% <100%> (+0.07%) ⬆️
cobra/core/reaction.py 85.21% <100%> (+0.1%) ⬆️

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 3005705...37e05d7. Read the comment docs.

codecov-io commented May 4, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #503 into devel will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           devel     #503      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage     69%   69.04%   +0.03%     
=========================================
  Files         64       64              
  Lines       8460     8469       +9     
  Branches    1443     1445       +2     
=========================================
+ Hits        5838     5847       +9     
  Misses      2366     2366              
  Partials     256      256
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
cobra/test/test_model.py 92.57% <100%> (+0.07%) ⬆️
cobra/core/reaction.py 85.21% <100%> (+0.1%) ⬆️

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 3005705...37e05d7. Read the comment docs.

@hredestig

Nice catch, cheers!

@hredestig hredestig merged commit 2a6b8cd into opencobra:devel May 7, 2017

4 checks passed

codecov/patch 100% of diff hit (target 69%)
Details
codecov/project 69.04% (+0.03%) compared to 3005705
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@hredestig hredestig removed the ready label May 7, 2017

@Midnighter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Midnighter

Midnighter May 7, 2017

Member

I know this is done and merged. Just wondering why the use of iterkeys? Isn't for key in dict: pass perfectly fine in all versions of Python?

Member

Midnighter commented May 7, 2017

I know this is done and merged. Just wondering why the use of iterkeys? Isn't for key in dict: pass perfectly fine in all versions of Python?

@pstjohn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pstjohn

pstjohn May 7, 2017

Contributor

Yeah I guess you're right, no real reason behind iterkeys

Contributor

pstjohn commented May 7, 2017

Yeah I guess you're right, no real reason behind iterkeys

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment