Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 8, 2024
Merged

Fix and add new README badges #788

merged 4 commits into from
Feb 8, 2024

Conversation

andrea-pasquale
Copy link
Contributor

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:

  • Reviewers confirm new code works as expected.
  • Tests are passing.
  • Coverage does not decrease.
  • Documentation is updated.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 29, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (154aab0) 63.97% compared to head (2578bb2) 63.97%.

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           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 63.97% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

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
@alecandido
Copy link
Member

alecandido commented Jan 29, 2024

@andrea-pasquale I abused your branch to make a further proposal (based on yours), it was easier showing than describing.
The motivations are in the commit message.

If you don't like it, feel free to revert.

@alecandido
Copy link
Member

alecandido commented Jan 29, 2024

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.
@scarrazza

@andrea-pasquale
Copy link
Contributor Author

@andrea-pasquale I abused your branch to make a further proposal (based on yours), it was easier showing than describing. The motivations are in the commit message.

If you don't like it, feel free to revert.

I like your proposal. I wanted to start a discussion to see which ones we should keep and which one we can remove.
Perhaps I would add again tests, codefactor also would be nice but I think that people probably don't care.

@alecandido
Copy link
Member

alecandido commented Jan 29, 2024

Perhaps I would add again tests, codefactor also would be nice but I think that people probably don't care.

Feel free :)

(for Codefactor in particular, I personally feel a bit guilty, given the amount of ignored Pylint warnings...)

Copy link
Member

@stavros11 stavros11 left a 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.

@alecandido
Copy link
Member

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.
So, it would be fine to have something different (for the time being).

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.

@andrea-pasquale
Copy link
Contributor Author

@stavros11 the idea of @andrea-pasquale (if I understood correctly), was to make a proposal to then propagate to the other repos as well.
So, it would be fine to have something different (for the time being).

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.

@andrea-pasquale andrea-pasquale merged commit 758e9a1 into main Feb 8, 2024
24 checks passed
@andrea-pasquale andrea-pasquale deleted the badges branch February 8, 2024 04:18
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