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

FTheoryTools: Print known properties of G4-fluxes #4422

Merged

Conversation

HereAround
Copy link
Member

@HereAround HereAround commented Jan 7, 2025

Print known properties of G4-fluxes.

Also, improve clarity of expression: "Lacking elementary quantization checks" is currently used to mean "we have not executed those tests". This is misleading. The proposed wording change should be much clearer.

cc @apturner @emikelsons

@HereAround HereAround added topic: FTheoryTools enhancement New feature or request labels Jan 7, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 7, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.34%. Comparing base (264490b) to head (5c60b6c).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...rimental/FTheoryTools/src/G4Fluxes/constructors.jl 85.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4422      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.34%   84.34%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         663      663              
  Lines       87788    87805      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits        74042    74056      +14     
- Misses      13746    13749       +3     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...perimental/FTheoryTools/src/G4Fluxes/attributes.jl 100.00% <ø> (ø)
...perimental/FTheoryTools/src/G4Fluxes/properties.jl 97.82% <ø> (ø)
...al/FTheoryTools/src/G4Fluxes/special_attributes.jl 80.99% <ø> (ø)
...rimental/FTheoryTools/src/G4Fluxes/constructors.jl 55.31% <85.00%> (+15.31%) ⬆️

@HereAround
Copy link
Member Author

IMHO, the failure in one jobs seems unrelated to the changes in this PR.

Copy link
Collaborator

@emikelsons emikelsons left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would rename checks: violated to checks: failed, because I think it sounds better, but otherwise looks good

@HereAround
Copy link
Member Author

I would rename checks: violated to checks: failed, because I think it sounds better, but otherwise looks good

I am certainly open to this. Maybe we can pass this language question to the mother tongue in our team. @apturner what are your thoughts?

@apturner
Copy link
Collaborator

apturner commented Jan 7, 2025

I agree with "checks: failed", that sounds more natural to me. The conditions were violated, and so the checks of those conditions failed.

@HereAround HereAround force-pushed the FluxesDisplayWhenWellQuantized branch from b051bc2 to 5c60b6c Compare January 7, 2025 20:15
@HereAround
Copy link
Member Author

I agree with "checks: failed", that sounds more natural to me. The conditions were violated, and so the checks of those conditions failed.

Just updated accordingly.

@HereAround HereAround enabled auto-merge (rebase) January 7, 2025 20:26
@HereAround HereAround merged commit 75f639b into oscar-system:master Jan 7, 2025
28 of 30 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants