Fix Adaptive DNB composite bug introduced from refactoring #2456
Conversation
This file contains 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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2456 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 94.81% 94.81%
=======================================
Files 339 339
Lines 49366 49368 +2
=======================================
+ Hits 46807 46810 +3
+ Misses 2559 2558 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
|
Looks like there is a coveralls outage that is causing tests to fail. It isn't the actual tests failing. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 fixes a bug I introduced when contributing to @simonrp84's #2124 PR when I refactored the VIIRS composites module. One simplification I did resulted in allowing negative indices to be used when accessing data when they were actually supposed to be considered out of bounds.
I haven't added a test for this explicitly because the difference it makes with our test dataset seems to be extremely small (0.9989 to 0.9990) and even in real world cases I didn't see anything obvious. The only reason I caught this is because of some automated testing I have in Polar2Grid which compared two images and it discovered that some pixels had changed.
Otherwise, this PR also fixes a few issues discovered in the tests (name changes and one expected data not being checked).