-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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
feat: Read LHE file version #139
Conversation
Codecov ReportBase: 68.75% // Head: 68.07% // Decreases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #139 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 68.75% 68.07% -0.68%
==========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 208 213 +5
Branches 56 57 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 143 145 +2
- Misses 58 61 +3
Partials 7 7
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
950bf2e
to
7eb02b9
Compare
Thanks @eduardo-rodrigues for cleaning up PR #132 here, though one fix was omitted. In the new init.py file under def read_lhe, below line 294 |
Thank you for your reply. I thought that is no longer needed because of the way that part of the code was rewritten, see master, but will check in any case. |
7eb02b9
to
e4df566
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@eduardo-rodrigues I'll let you follow up on
I thought that is no longer needed because of the way that part of the code was rewritten, see master, but will check in any case.
but this LGTM so if that's all good this is good to merge whenever you bring it out of draft.
Thank you both. I committed something important for this PR + little improvements in view of the future. We can then move forward and I will follow-up on the above. |
@matthewfeickert, ready to merge if you're also happy. As said above, there will be stuff to improve towards better coverage, but that's general. |
Oh, you had approved already. OK, merging, thanks :-). |
FYI @UCSC-EarlAlmazan indeed the new line |
Effectively the diff of old PR #132 that is messy and now largely redundant in what it fixes.
Closes #132.
Squash and Merge Commit Message