Change end time inequality

[apragsdale]

Closes #1304

Some tests are still failing here.. trying to figure out what's going on

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1521 (1cf5a99) into main (824bc44) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 80.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1521   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.37%   91.37%           
=======================================
  Files          23       23           
  Lines       10105    10105           
  Branches     2119     2119           
=======================================
  Hits         9233     9233           
  Misses        438      438           
  Partials      434      434           

Flag	Coverage Δ
C	91.37% <80.00%> (ø)
python	98.77% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
msprime/ancestry.py	99.40% <ø> (ø)
lib/msprime.c	85.77% <80.00%> (ø)

---

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 824bc44...1cf5a99. Read the comment docs.

[apragsdale]

I fiddled with tests a bit to get them to pass. There were a few testing the timing of some events when it equaled the set end time, of course, so would be good to check that I haven't made those tests useless.

Also, two tests were failing in lib/tests/ancestry.c, and I'm wondering if lines 373 and 489 should be changed to ret = msp_run(&msp, 10.0-1e-6, ULONG_MAX);..?

[jeromekelleher]

Excellent, thanks @apragsdale! Yes, I think you're right we can change those C tests. This does mean that our semantics wrt events like sampling etc is slightly different than before, I guess it's unlikely anyone is actually depending on this. This is the sort of stuff we want to break for 1.0 anyway, while we're breaking stuff.

We should add a note to the CHANGELOG to make sure we don't forget to tell people about it, though.l

[apragsdale]

Ok, changelog updated. Let me know if you want any changes made here, or if I should rebase/etc

[jeromekelleher]

Looks great, thanks @apragsdale. I think we just need to update the documentation for the end_time parameter, squash and we're good to merge.

[apragsdale]

Is this ok to merge? Not sure what to do about the one codecov failure here..

[jeromekelleher]

@Mergifyio please rebase

[mergify]

Sorry but I didn't understand the command. Please consult the commands documentation 📚.

[jeromekelleher]

@Mergifyio rebase

[mergify]

Sorry but I didn't understand the command. Please consult the commands documentation 📚.

[jeromekelleher]

@Mergifyio rebase

[jeromekelleher]

LGTM, thanks @apragsdale!

[mergify]

Command rebase: success

Branch has been successfully rebased

[apragsdale]

Thanks Jerome - glad to get this sorted!

[jeromekelleher]

Thanks for sorting it out @apragsdale!