codecov[bot]
commented
1 year ago Codecov Report
Base: 94.58% // Head: 94.58% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00% :warning:
Coverage data is based on head (
9a48926) compared to base (6c144bb). Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #714 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 94.58% 94.58% -0.01% ========================================== Files 172 172 Lines 8843 8841 -2 Branches 1722 1721 -1 ========================================== - Hits 8364 8362 -2 Misses 346 346 Partials 133 133 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | integration | `70.12% <0.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | | unittests | `90.70% <100.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | 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=dstl#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/dstl/Stone-Soup/pull/714?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=dstl) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [stonesoup/base.py](https://codecov.io/gh/dstl/Stone-Soup/pull/714/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=dstl#diff-c3RvbmVzb3VwL2Jhc2UucHk=) | `95.26% <100.00%> (-0.05%)` | :arrow_down: | 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=dstl). 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=dstl):umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
I haven't manged to write a test which fails with the old logic and passes with the new, but in testing other things I spotted this logic error, so thought it should be fixed.
It has no effect on functionality that I can detect.