codecov-commenter
commented
5 months ago Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 89.03%. Comparing base (
77f3515) to head (7d4d65e).
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #14 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 89.03% 89.03% ======================================= Files 19 19 Lines 1477 1477 ======================================= Hits 1315 1315 Misses 162 162 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/Green-Phys/green-mbpt/pull/14/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Green-Phys) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/Green-Phys/green-mbpt/pull/14/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Green-Phys) | `89.03% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Green-Phys#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
The missing
cell.build()call was causing lots of issues with ECP that were extremely difficult to catch. For example, the generated auxiliary ETB basis set was wrong for ECP atoms. There were issues with integrals as well.