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

Cleaning reconst scripts, part 3. #926

Merged

Conversation

EmmaRenauld
Copy link
Contributor

@EmmaRenauld EmmaRenauld commented Feb 28, 2024

Quick description

Continuing the verification of reconst scripts.

Here, only touching the two mti_maps scripts. I did not succeed to encapsulate any parts of code that could be testable.
However, ~160 lines of codes in both scripts were exactly copy-pasted. I tried to at least put them together. Tell me if you don't agree.

Also, in the tests, the same filenames were copy-pasted many times. Simplifying by defining them once at the top. Easier to read.

Type of change

Check the relevant options.

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • This change requires a documentation update
  • Cleaning scripts.

Provide data, screenshots, command line to test (if relevant)

...

Checklist

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project (run autopep8)
  • I added relevant citations to scripts, modules and functions docstrings and descriptions
  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I moved all functions from the script file (except the argparser and main) to scilpy modules
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 28, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.45299% with 10 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 69.36%. Comparing base (4c2848c) to head (aa25366).
Report is 73 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #926      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   69.17%   69.36%   +0.19%     
==========================================
  Files         389      390       +1     
  Lines       20963    20953      -10     
  Branches     3233     3211      -22     
==========================================
+ Hits        14501    14534      +33     
+ Misses       5132     5109      -23     
+ Partials     1330     1310      -20     
Components Coverage Δ
Scripts 71.70% <100.00%> (+0.09%) ⬆️
Library 65.47% <87.17%> (+0.42%) ⬆️

Copy link
Contributor

@arnaudbore arnaudbore left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks really good two quick comments and GTG !

scilpy/io/mti.py Show resolved Hide resolved
scilpy/io/mti.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@arnaudbore arnaudbore merged commit 4491228 into scilus:master Mar 5, 2024
2 checks passed
@EmmaRenauld EmmaRenauld deleted the cleaning_reconst_scripts_part3 branch March 5, 2024 19:47
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.

None yet

3 participants