Closed kellertuer closed 2 years ago
Merging #101 (7ee4e66) into master (d72f79c) will increase coverage by
0.00%
. The diff coverage is100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #101 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.80% 99.80%
=======================================
Files 17 17
Lines 2052 2068 +16
=======================================
+ Hits 2048 2064 +16
Misses 4 4
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
src/ManifoldsBase.jl | 99.22% <ø> (ø) |
|
src/decorator_trait.jl | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
src/errors.jl | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
:mega: Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more
Besides test coverage, I am surprised my code fails on Julia 1.0, I still have to check why, because mpe
can not be nothing when entering the ManifoldDomainError
(the if around) but it somehow still does end up being so.
Where do you see it failing on Julia 1.0? Tests pass now.
I see what happened, I had a typo in the previous commit which I even pushed (separately) so it triggered the tests and that failed.
So then only test coverage is left to check.
I hopefully just finished coverage (and added the same style to check size).
Currently the inner error is printed as
[0, 0, 0] is not a tangent vector to [1, 1, 0] on PosQuadrantManifold() because it is not a valid tangent vector in its embedding:
DomainError(0, "X[1] ≤ 0")
Can this maybe improved / is there a nicer print for errors in strings?
Can this maybe improved / is there a nicer print for errors in strings?
I stole an idea from our other error prints (changing the last print in the show error
to another show error
and the error now prints as
ManifoldDomainError: [0, 0, 0] is not a point on PosQuadrantManifold() because it is not a valid point in its embedding.
DomainError with 0:
p[1] ≤ 0
(Yet another small update) to have nicer error messages for the case of embedded manifolds when the check for validity in the embedding (already) fails.
I am not sure whether we might have missed a
check_size
in the embedding here (that is one thing that is not done in the newly usedcheck_
compare to the oldis_
), and we still have to check for test coverage.