codecov[bot]
commented
1 year ago Codecov Report
Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: +0.07% :tada:
Comparison is base (
48ee6e4) 95.06% compared to head (252ad09) 95.13%. Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## develop #165 +/- ## =========================================== + Coverage 95.06% 95.13% +0.07% =========================================== Files 16 16 Lines 2409 2426 +17 Branches 318 316 -2 =========================================== + Hits 2290 2308 +18 + Misses 73 72 -1 Partials 46 46 ``` | [Files Changed](https://app.codecov.io/gh/The-Academic-Observatory/oaebu-workflows/pull/165?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=The-Academic-Observatory) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [oaebu\_workflows/oaebu\_partners.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/The-Academic-Observatory/oaebu-workflows/pull/165?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=The-Academic-Observatory#diff-b2FlYnVfd29ya2Zsb3dzL29hZWJ1X3BhcnRuZXJzLnB5) | `100.00% <ø> (ø)` | | | [oaebu\_workflows/workflows/onix\_workflow.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/The-Academic-Observatory/oaebu-workflows/pull/165?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=The-Academic-Observatory#diff-b2FlYnVfd29ya2Zsb3dzL3dvcmtmbG93cy9vbml4X3dvcmtmbG93LnB5) | `96.60% <100.00%> (+0.23%)` | :arrow_up: | | [...ebu\_workflows/workflows/ucl\_discovery\_telescope.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/The-Academic-Observatory/oaebu-workflows/pull/165?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=The-Academic-Observatory#diff-b2FlYnVfd29ya2Zsb3dzL3dvcmtmbG93cy91Y2xfZGlzY292ZXJ5X3RlbGVzY29wZS5weQ==) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | |:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Quick fix for the IRUS empty tables. Missed in the original PR #160 because the tests don't cover empty data.