codecov-commenter
commented
1 month ago Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 87.62%. Comparing base (
a6c1bf7) to head (23c286d).
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #479 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 87.57% 87.62% +0.04% ========================================== Files 122 122 Lines 18233 18249 +16 ========================================== + Hits 15968 15991 +23 + Misses 2265 2258 -7 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/NREL/reV/pull/479/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=NREL) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/NREL/reV/pull/479/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=NREL) | `87.62% <100.00%> (+0.04%)` | :arrow_up: | 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=NREL#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.
Costs in vanilla reV were incorrectly being reported as $/kW instead of $/MW as advertised. Fixed in this PR + updated tests to catch this