codecov[bot]
commented
3 months ago Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 37.47%. Comparing base (
cb0a447) to head (9e7b0f9).
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #254 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 37.45% 37.47% +0.02% ========================================== Files 89 89 Lines 29785 29689 -96 ========================================== - Hits 11156 11127 -29 + Misses 18629 18562 -67 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/hjkgrp/molSimplify/pull/254/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=hjkgrp) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/hjkgrp/molSimplify/pull/254/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=hjkgrp) | `37.47% <ø> (+0.02%)` | :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=hjkgrp#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.
The only thing Aaron changed here were docstrings, but one conda test fails. I think this is due to the stochasticity of some of the pytest tests. @dbkchu Do you know if there is a way to ask pytest (conda) to try the check again, without having to do another commit on the rmsd_doc_update branch?