Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@cristinamullin
Copy link
Collaborator

@cristinamullin cristinamullin commented Oct 17, 2025

The upper and lower flag functions were not accounting for invalid units. If the units are not valid, then the ranges are not either and now those rows are also flagged as suspect.

TADA_FlagAboveThreshold
TADA_FlagBelowThreshold

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 17, 2025

coverage-report

File Coverage Missing
All files 37%
R/ATTAINSCrosswalks.R 22% 64-741 930-940 944-948 953-956 961 969-972 979-982 987-1008 1016-1026 1051-1054 1178-1253 1265 1272-1450 1619-1631 1635-1638 1643-1645 1673-1676 1687-1690 1698-1702 1714-1718 1730-1736 1741-1752 1758 1766-1769 1859-1865 1870-1872 1977 1984-2155 2335-2720 2845-2848 2863 2871-2874 2881-2899 2907-2911 2922-2926 2942-3004 3008-3014 3051-3141 3146-3149 3154-3248
R/ATTAINSRefTables.R 0% 17-226
R/autoClean.R 85% 145-146 230-236 364-365 375-379
R/autoFilter.R 0% 27-430
R/CensoredDataSuite.R 89% 52-53 143 173-174 216-218 408-409 414 417 425 453-457 460-461 467-469 486-488
R/ContinuousDataFunctions.R 54% 151-152 184 189-257 264-265 288-324 341-345 348 388-389 479-541 546-588 595-602 607-608 647 658 664 669-676 701
R/CriteriaComparison.R 89% 159-161 166 176 223-241
R/CriteriaMethods.R 23% 155 175 185 191-250 404-406 422-424 529-669 675-711 733-984 1003-1171
R/CriteriaRefTables.R 0% 26-83
R/DataDiscoveryRetrieval.R 33% 197 206-211 225-230 240-245 251 255 270-676 690 698 700 704-707 710 716 718 722 724 730 734 736 746 748 752 758 760 764 766 771 773 777 783-786 789 801-809 822-828 857-865 879-887 907 1001-1033 1138-1145 1236-1272 1360-1363 1415-1574
R/DepthProfile.R 0% 96-1471
R/Figures.R 0% 64-1519
R/GeospatialFunctions.R 30% 163-165 176-180 184 239 277 321-547 688-689 695-698 770 778-921 926-1110 1278-1289 1306-1308 1310 1338 1344-1388 1415-1417 1495-1578 1588-2122 2202 2245 2266-2587 2839 2843 2847 2868-2912 2976-3035 3040-3064 3141-3733
R/MaintenanceScheduled.R 0% 42-366
R/RequiredCols.R 16% 358-579
R/ResultFlagsDependent.R 64% 57 62 95-99 119-123 219 248-250 267-269 276 292-303 398 405 412 420 480 486 502-511 577 589-596 618 629-633 700-787 882 931-939 960 964 970-974
R/ResultFlagsIndependent.R 65% 69 75 111-137 240 245 249 253 263 332-333 345-371 459 464 471 565-574 586-602 689 694 701 800-979 1024 1043-1062 1073-1076 1177 1181 1224-1235 1240 1244-1247 1314-1315 1391-1443 1541-1547
R/Tables.R 77% 19-30 86
R/TADAGeospatialRefLayers.R 0% 8-13
R/TADARefTables.R 83% 72 82-86
R/Transformations.R 88% 76-77 82 179-185 343-344 380-381 465 540-541 709-722 807-808 819-820 825 840-843 846-855 859
R/UnitConversions.R 81% 128 344 351 358 365 372 379 386 393-394 520-584 608-645 668 708 722-731 923-925 1002 1059-1062 1092
R/Utilities.R 50% 28-32 183 296-297 301 306 379 481-489 550-551 558 620-621 651-655 758-759 763-764 774-778 783-784 826-1119 1145-1146 1157-1158 1218-1567 1660-1693
R/WQPWQXRefTables.R 62% 21-86 110 120 126-128 140 162 172 178-180 255 277 287 293-295 379 400 410 416-420 564 586 596 602-604 621 644 654 660-662 767-970

Minimum allowed coverage is 10%

Generated by 🐒 cobertura-action against 76eaaa3

Copy link
Collaborator

@jbousquin jbousquin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks like an old (>1 year) branch that was brought forward with some lingering changes (e.g., Data_Nutrients_UT -> Data_R5_TADAPackageDemo) that I don't have the context to ensure are intentional vs a revert that made it through merges.

I do see where the bad units handling was added to the two functions in ResulFlagsIndependent and it seems like it should accomplish what it is intended to.

The couple of in-line comments I made were whitespace formatting, a quick styler() run should fix throughout (approving without requiring changes to expedite).

@jbousquin
Copy link
Collaborator

Note that this makes these two functions longer while doing the same thing across both (relevant to #690)

@cristinamullin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Looks like an old (>1 year) branch that was brought forward with some lingering changes (e.g., Data_Nutrients_UT -> Data_R5_TADAPackageDemo) that I don't have the context to ensure are intentional vs a revert that made it through merges.

I do see where the bad units handling was added to the two functions in ResulFlagsIndependent and it seems like it should accomplish what it is intended to.

The couple of in-line comments I made were whitespace formatting, a quick styler() run should fix throughout (approving without requiring changes to expedite).

I ran styler to remove extra white space/blank lines. The switch from Data_Nutrients_UT -> Data_R5_TADAPackageDemo is intentional in the documentation for the flag functions. Data_Nutrients_UT is already somewhat clean (some functions have already been run on it) so it is not a good example for those.

@cristinamullin cristinamullin merged commit 6b93804 into develop Oct 20, 2025
9 of 10 checks passed
@cristinamullin cristinamullin deleted the range-flag-update branch October 20, 2025 18:04
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