-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Drop support for python 3.7 #98
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #98 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 93.68% 93.81% +0.12%
==========================================
Files 32 33 +1
Lines 3374 3363 -11
Branches 622 617 -5
==========================================
- Hits 3161 3155 -6
+ Misses 140 137 -3
+ Partials 73 71 -2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
e78cdd9
to
cdffe8a
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.
There is one change I don't like (style, not function). Otherwise looks good to me.
fgpyo/vcf/tests/test_builder.py
Outdated
else random_generator.uniform(0, 1) | ||
if value_type == VcfFieldType.FLOAT | ||
else random_generator.choice(["Up", "Down"]) | ||
else ( | ||
random_generator.uniform(0, 1) | ||
if value_type == VcfFieldType.FLOAT | ||
else random_generator.choice(["Up", "Down"]) | ||
) |
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.
I don't understand the need for this change. The original seems more pythonic to me.
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.
This change was made by black after updating to a newer version.
FWIW I find the original more difficult to parse. I'm a fan of using parens to group statements (even when not strictly necessary) to improve readability.
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.
I can try to revert the change and see if black complains.
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.
I feel like a series of v1 if c1 else v2 if c2 else c3 is pretty typical for python. But the version black made isn't some unreadable abomination. If you don't care either way I'd say try to revert it. If black doesn't let you, that's that. I approved.
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.
Looks like the CI checks pass after reverting.
I'm not sure why the codecov check is failing. I deleted lots of code that was not covered by the tests, so I would have expected coverage to go up not down. |
I suspect it's some crazy math to do with the fraction of lines in the change that are tested? In any case, the 2nd codecov test (overall project coverage) increased. I think you've done your duty and should merge. |
Awesome thanks! |
No description provided.