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

NF: function allows user to change Y position of rating scale. #1776

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 22, 2018

Conversation

@dvbridges
Copy link
Contributor

@dvbridges dvbridges commented Mar 22, 2018

The existing rating scale only allows the user to change the Y-location of the rating scale upon instantiation of the rating scale object. Thus, if y-positioning is to be changed throughout the experiment, the rating scale must be re-instantiated. This new feature allows the user to change the y-positioning of the rating scale at any point during the experiment without the need to re-instantiate a rating scale object.

The existing rating scale only allows the user to change the Y-location of the rating scale upon instantiation of the rating scale object. Thus, if y-positioning is to be changed throughout the experiment, the rating scale must be re-instantiated. This new feature allows the user to change the y-positioning of the rating scale at any point during the experiment without the need to re-instantiate a rating scale object.
@coveralls
Copy link

@coveralls coveralls commented Mar 22, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 51.735% when pulling 4b71573 on dvbridges:ratingScalePos into 7fad95a on psychopy:master.

3 similar comments
@coveralls
Copy link

@coveralls coveralls commented Mar 22, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 51.735% when pulling 4b71573 on dvbridges:ratingScalePos into 7fad95a on psychopy:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

@coveralls coveralls commented Mar 22, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 51.735% when pulling 4b71573 on dvbridges:ratingScalePos into 7fad95a on psychopy:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

@coveralls coveralls commented Mar 22, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 51.735% when pulling 4b71573 on dvbridges:ratingScalePos into 7fad95a on psychopy:master.

@codecov-io
Copy link

@codecov-io codecov-io commented Mar 22, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #1776 into master will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 5.26%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1776      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.08%   47.05%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         218      218              
  Lines       33287    33306      +19     
  Branches     5557     5564       +7     
==========================================
  Hits        15672    15672              
- Misses      16056    16074      +18     
- Partials     1559     1560       +1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
psychopy/visual/ratingscale.py 83.63% <5.26%> (-2.35%) ⬇️
psychopy/data/base.py 71.87% <0%> (-0.9%) ⬇️
psychopy/tools/wizard.py 74.01% <0%> (+0.21%) ⬆️

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 7fad95a...4b71573. Read the comment docs.

@peircej peircej merged commit 993430c into psychopy:master Mar 22, 2018
1 of 2 checks passed
1 of 2 checks passed
lgtm analysis: Python Running analyses for revisions
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@peircej
Copy link
Member

@peircej peircej commented Mar 22, 2018

This pull request introduces 2 alerts when merging 4b71573 into 7fad95a - view on lgtm.com

new alerts:

  • 2 for Potentially uninitialized local variable

Comment posted by lgtm.com

@dvbridges dvbridges deleted the ratingScalePos branch Aug 30, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants