plot_profiles

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (e73143c) 86.04% compared to head (3624961) 86.27%.

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.

[OscarvanVuren]

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.

[logsdail]

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