Skip to content

Conversation

@edoyango
Copy link
Collaborator

This covers the last handful of statements that were not or partially covered.

  • I marked a partially covered if statement as no cover since the false case is never reached.
  • I pulled out the check_if_index tmp function to make it easier to test.

@edoyango edoyango requested a review from tennlee November 13, 2025 22:13
@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 19347476561

Details

  • 28 of 28 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 62.314%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 19330227731: 0.1%
Covered Lines: 9811
Relevant Lines: 15342

💛 - Coveralls

@edoyango
Copy link
Collaborator Author

edoyango commented Nov 13, 2025

ok these tests were pretty tricky for me so i'm just a bit demoralized that total coverage has only gone up 0.1% 🥲

@tennlee
Copy link
Collaborator

tennlee commented Nov 13, 2025

Yeah it's hard! I have the same feeling - I enjoy the big wins a lot more than the little gains (in terms of % covered) but often it's the niggly specific things which are actually more essential. Branching is a really core part of how the pipelines work, and is tricky, so I super-appreciate it. Also, PET has a lot of lines of code, so even a big change is still going to be like 0.3% or something.

@tennlee tennlee merged commit 9357665 into ACCESS-Community-Hub:develop Nov 14, 2025
5 of 6 checks passed
@tennlee
Copy link
Collaborator

tennlee commented Nov 14, 2025

Thanks! Looks great! Much appreciated, great to get the test coverage.

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.

3 participants