Gpl 771 test fixes #216
Gpl 771 test fixes #216
Conversation
* develop: (43 commits) Correct method documentation Do not incorrectly specify "positive" samples in the log message Raise an exception during the filtered positive rule change migration if the cherrypicked samples dataframe is None Update comments Renamed view for new view_plate_map Added --add-to-dart to Dockerfile Appease black and flake8 Update tests Only add Result=Positive samples to DART. This will only affect the add to DART migration: the filtered positive rule change migration only passes RESULT=Positive samples to this method anyway Update add to DART helper method to fetch all samples between the timestamp range, not just Result=Positive ones Add events_warehouse database Add port to MLWH connection update in ci_docker as well as ci_python remove mysql root password from ci builds to match most people's local dev setups get rid of import - no longer used rename crawler service in docker compose to be consistent with other stack naming conventions don't keep connection config in the constants file, keep it in the default config file PR comment make connection string use the same constants as the username & password route - tests now pass locally Add comments detailing the scenario of each test ... # Conflicts: # migrations/helpers/update_legacy_filtered_positives_helper.py # tests/conftest.py # tests/migrations/helpers/test_update_legacy_filtered_positives_helper.py
tests/migrations/helpers/test_update_legacy_filtered_positives_helper.py
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| @@ -199,3 +232,76 @@ def split_mongo_samples_by_version( | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| return samples_by_version | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| def update_mlwh_filtered_positive_fields_batched( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As mentioned, I think the existing filtered positive rule change migration should call this more performant MLWH update method. Do you reckon it worth doing this as part of these changes, or a new "refactor" task, e.g. #173
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually I think @KatyTaylor was creating a new task with filtered positive rule change migration changes, so I think that can be done as part of that task. I'm not sure if that task has been created yet though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@KatyTaylor, is this still to be done?
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #216 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 91.23% 91.46% +0.22%
===========================================
Files 26 26
Lines 1963 2086 +123
Branches 236 252 +16
===========================================
+ Hits 1791 1908 +117
- Misses 126 127 +1
- Partials 46 51 +5
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@KatyTaylor @pjvv I've made the changes Alex wasn't able to finish. Would you mind looking over the PR to check everything is in order? |
Closes #167
Changes proposed in this pull request: