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

Skip to content

Conversation

@zariiii9003
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes #636

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Dec 28, 2023

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 7358272096

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 93.588%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 7314221746: 0.1%
Covered Lines: 7239
Relevant Lines: 7735

💛 - Coveralls

Copy link
Member

@andlaus andlaus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks good, but one of the if conditions looks to be inverted...

if scaling:
scaled_value = signal_value
else:
if signal.conversion.choices and signal_value in signal.conversion.choices:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

that condition probably must go one level up (scaled values can also be enums)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's true, fixed.

@andlaus
Copy link
Member

andlaus commented Dec 29, 2023

all cool now, let's get that merged!

@andlaus andlaus merged commit 4a81e1c into cantools:master Dec 29, 2023
@zariiii9003 zariiii9003 deleted the fix_636 branch September 18, 2024 07:40
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.

Message._assert_signal_values_valid() uses incorrect minimum raw values for signals with negative scale

3 participants