-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Fix and add new README badges #788
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #788 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 63.97% 63.97%
=======================================
Files 49 49
Lines 5773 5773
=======================================
Hits 3693 3693
Misses 2080 2080
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Those related to the paper have been moved to the citation section, to keep all references together, tests are omitted, assuming Codecov is already providing a superset of that information, and codefactor and Black are not adding much
@andrea-pasquale I abused your branch to make a further proposal (based on yours), it was easier showing than describing. If you don't like it, feel free to revert. |
Btw, the citation policy section is pointing to Qibo, where (correctly?) the Qibolab paper is not listed. We should decide if keeping each package references separate, and then update those that or not Qibo, or otherwise update Qibo with (at least) the Qibolab paper. |
I like your proposal. I wanted to start a discussion to see which ones we should keep and which one we can remove. |
Feel free :) (for Codefactor in particular, I personally feel a bit guilty, given the amount of ignored Pylint warnings...) |
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 for fixing this @andrea-pasquale. Personally I would add at least the "tests" badge because we have it in other repositories, but either way is fine with me.
@stavros11 the idea of @andrea-pasquale (if I understood correctly), was to make a proposal to then propagate to the other repos as well. I proposed to have only Codecov, because if Codecov is working tests are passing (they are related to the same topic). But if you want to have it explicit, just add it. |
Indeed, I will propagate these changes to all our repos. Regarding tests in theory we should also be able to see if tests are passing or no by checking the last commit which is always shown on GitHub therefore it might be redundant also for this reason. |
I've fixed the
tests
badge and I've also added others badges.We can even drop some of them I just wanted to make the
README
look nicer.I could also propagate some of those changes to the other repos.
Checklist: