-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
First attempt to generalize unique metadata group interactions #55
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
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #55 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 97.09% 97.08% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 448 446 -2
Branches 52 48 -4
==========================================
- Hits 435 433 -2
- Misses 9 10 +1
+ Partials 4 3 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
If |
I want to leave open the possibility of other metadata being stored on these groups such that there may be additional prefixes. |
Good call. I think I know what you have in mind. |
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.
Thanks @gonuke!
I'm going to bypass the coverage check and merge. This improvement is worth the decrease of 0.02% in our 97% coverage I think 😃
Thanks! I'm actually a little confused by the coverage test. There appear to be multiple metrics and I added tests that addressed the first metric. I can't for the life of me figure out where coverage is now reduced by this.... |
Fixes #54
Moves the code that handles interactions for all groups that may exist only once and use a key to define them:
It has been used for boundary data on Surfaces and material data on Volumes here.