-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
Extend 3c transforms #516
Extend 3c transforms #516
Conversation
Oh yes, forgot to run the C test function. That should also adress issue #512. |
Assuming the current set of tests pass on github this branch is ready to merge. The pytest functions for the new set of Seismogram wrapper functions are fully tested, although we should verify if the coverage gizmo flags anything. I also tested them with my tutorial notebook on three component data transformations and I get the answers I expect. Hence, unless something unexpected pops up in the tests currently running I advise you, @wangyinz, to merge this branch with master. |
Well, obviously that last push didn't pass the pytest run. Rather mysterious, but my fault for not explicitly running the test under pytest and not checking the exception handler code. I forgot that that only could be tested under pytest. Working on that so ignore this until you see it pass all these tests. Sorry, @wangyinz , for being overconfident this was ready to merge |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #516 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 55.08% 55.24% +0.15%
==========================================
Files 144 144
Lines 22429 22560 +131
==========================================
+ Hits 12356 12464 +108
- Misses 10073 10096 +23 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@wangyinz I think you should merge this branch. I noticed codecov flagged some missing testing for error handler lines that do kill if the rotate_to_standard throws an exception. I am 100% sure those handlers work. There is one other that issues a rare complaint message that is very unlikely to ever be executed. I'm sure the syntax is right and it won't fail if used. Adding a test for such a rare event seems unnecessary to me. If you disagree I'll try to create something. |
Fixes and extensions to address Issue #511. Five major changes/additions:
Note I'm pushing this to verify all the changes match my local test runs. I want to do a final sanity check against data before suggesting this really be merged.