Closed daniel-thom closed 3 years ago
Merging #172 (0aba3d2) into master (b527f9e) will decrease coverage by
0.12%
. The diff coverage is67.74%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #172 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 70.35% 70.23% -0.13%
==========================================
Files 41 42 +1
Lines 2601 2614 +13
==========================================
+ Hits 1830 1836 +6
- Misses 771 778 +7
Flag | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
unittests | 70.23% <67.74%> (-0.13%) |
:arrow_down: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
src/InfrastructureSystems.jl | 66.66% <ø> (ø) |
|
src/deterministic.jl | 78.57% <0.00%> (ø) |
|
src/time_series_formats.jl | 69.04% <0.00%> (ø) |
|
src/validation.jl | 9.90% <0.00%> (ø) |
|
src/utils/assert_op.jl | 44.44% <44.44%> (ø) |
|
src/utils/utils.jl | 52.40% <80.00%> (ø) |
|
src/component.jl | 85.92% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
src/components.jl | 90.21% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
src/deterministic_single_time_series.jl | 73.58% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
src/forecasts.jl | 84.37% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
... and 3 more |
LGTM but it will be good to have a page in docs about it, if you can add it before merging would be great.
Sure. If Dheepak also approves then I will do that. I will also go through IS and PSY and apply this in cases where we are calling assert.
This PR adds an assert macro that automatically prints the values that didn't match. A downside to this approach is that the Julia devs say that they plan to compile out assert statements in optimized builds. I don't know how they plan to do that. Use of this macro would not be covered by that.