Closed philbull closed 2 years ago
Yet another reason that we should re-factor the UVBeam/AnalyticBeam classes. This looks good, but I think we need to fix #219
@steven-murray Hopefully fixed #219 now...
Merging #220 (9ba2f10) into main (ab63753) will increase coverage by
0.00%
. The diff coverage is100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #220 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 96.54% 96.54%
=======================================
Files 24 24
Lines 2807 2809 +2
=======================================
+ Hits 2710 2712 +2
Misses 97 97
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
hera_sim/beams.py | 98.22% <100.00%> (+0.01%) |
:arrow_up: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 68b9e9f...9ba2f10. Read the comment docs.
Thanks, I'll merge now if that's OK. (I think the test will pass, it's just giving a HTTP request rate error)
Trivial PR to add a dummy
select()
method to thePolyBeam
class, so it can be used by the new-style hera_simVisibilitySimulator
class.Incidentally, this also fixes an issue with the pre-commit hooks using a now-deprecated GitHub access URL.