brainglobe / cellfinder-napari

Efficient cell detection in large images using cellfinder in napari
https://brainglobe.info/documentation/cellfinder/index.html
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
23 stars 6 forks source link

Fix tests #149

Closed dstansby closed 1 year ago

dstansby commented 1 year ago

Fixes https://github.com/brainglobe/cellfinder-napari/issues/146

deprecated-napari-hub-preview-bot[bot] commented 1 year ago

Preview page for your plugin is ready here: https://preview.napari-hub.org/brainglobe/cellfinder-napari/149 Updated: 2023-02-03T11:39:49.611219

codecov[bot] commented 1 year ago

Codecov Report

Base: 95.42% // Head: 95.42% // Increases project coverage by +0.00% :tada:

Coverage data is based on head (d9ee808) compared to base (e2d73a3). Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #149 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 95.42% 95.42% ======================================= Files 17 17 Lines 808 809 +1 ======================================= + Hits 771 772 +1 Misses 37 37 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/brainglobe/cellfinder-napari/pull/149?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=brainglobe) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [cellfinder\_napari/detect/detect.py](https://codecov.io/gh/brainglobe/cellfinder-napari/pull/149?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=brainglobe#diff-Y2VsbGZpbmRlcl9uYXBhcmkvZGV0ZWN0L2RldGVjdC5weQ==) | `93.44% <ø> (ø)` | | | [cellfinder\_napari/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://codecov.io/gh/brainglobe/cellfinder-napari/pull/149?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=brainglobe#diff-Y2VsbGZpbmRlcl9uYXBhcmkvX19pbml0X18ucHk=) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [cellfinder\_napari/curation.py](https://codecov.io/gh/brainglobe/cellfinder-napari/pull/149?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=brainglobe#diff-Y2VsbGZpbmRlcl9uYXBhcmkvY3VyYXRpb24ucHk=) | `89.87% <0.00%> (+0.04%)` | :arrow_up: | Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=brainglobe). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=brainglobe)

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

sonarcloud[bot] commented 1 year ago

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

dstansby commented 1 year ago

Again, I'm not sure why the py3.9 test is failing. The only error message is fatal IO error 0 (Success) on X server ":0", and all the tests pass. So I'd advocate merging this as it fixes the tests, and we can deal with that error in another PR if it becomes an issue.