Closed krlmlr closed 3 years ago
Merging #40 (a46f85b) into main (f900626) will decrease coverage by
0.00%
. The diff coverage is38.88%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #40 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 37.73% 37.73% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 16 16
Lines 628 636 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 237 240 +3
- Misses 391 396 +5
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
R/swc_get_mapping.R | 70.83% <21.42%> (-1.36%) |
:arrow_down: |
R/swc_get_mutations.R | 94.52% <100.00%> (-1.20%) |
:arrow_down: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f900626...a46f85b. Read the comment docs.
It seems to me, that there are just some municipality ids missing in the call swc_get_mapping(ids_from=ids_from, ids_to=ids_to)
The example works if we don't filter the mids (all.ids <- c(tid(ids_from), tid(ids_to))
in the function swc_get_mutations(mids = NULL, canton = NULL)
:
if (!is.null(mids)) {
municipality_mutations <-
municipality_mutations %>%
filter(mId %in% !!mids)
}
The problem arises in the self-merge()
call a little later, where mAbolitionId
is matched with mAdmissionId
.
I am not sure what the lists ids_from and ids_to mean and why it should be logical that no mids are missing.
Not filtering the mids misses the point of the argument mids
in swc_get_mutations
though.
But currently, the waiting time is not very long if we don't filter. Shall I just remove the argument and remove the filtering code snippet from above?
Actually, for swc_get_mutations()
to properly work with a mids
-list, the list needs to contain both the mid_from
and mid_to
for each mutation. Is that the intention? (it says in the documentation that if the self-merge doesn't find a match, NAs
are produced)
Start with consistent behavior on R 4.0 and R devel, now failing everywhere.
Closes #39.