Closed ikowalec closed 9 months ago
All looks relatively self-explanatory to me. Perhaps some functionality testing by users with use cases (i.e. not me) will reveal direction for further development in future? Otherwise this looks good to merge.
Nice merge - quite a few hardcoded variables, so I’d flag as a todo that these need reviewing/softening, as well as documenting (as you’ve noted).
Happy to see the plot is returned also, rather than shown. Means output is flexible for further refinement
Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #135 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 86.04% 86.27% +0.22% ========================================== Files 69 70 +1 Lines 2709 2754 +45 ========================================== + Hits 2331 2376 +45 Misses 378 378 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/logsdail/carmm/pull/135/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Andrew+Logsdail) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/logsdail/carmm/pull/135/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Andrew+Logsdail) | `86.27% <100.00%> (+0.22%)` | :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=Andrew+Logsdail#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.