codecov[bot]
commented
5 months ago Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 83.33%. Comparing base (
a471d49) to head (f84da89). Report is 1 commits behind head on master.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #350 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 83.32% 83.33% ======================================= Files 161 161 Lines 12363 12368 +5 ======================================= + Hits 10302 10307 +5 Misses 2061 2061 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/pySTEPS/pysteps/pull/350/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=pySTEPS) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unit_tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/pySTEPS/pysteps/pull/350/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=pySTEPS) | `83.33% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)` | :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=pySTEPS#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.
dnerini
This PR fixes a bug in the
pysteps.tracking.tdating.matchfunction. As far as I can tell, in this bug the label 0 was included in possible match IDs, even though 0 denotes pixels that are not part of any cell. So there could be cases, where the advected cell would have e.g. 55% of 0 and 45% of some cell and it would not be matched to that cell. So this fix will first check if the advected cell contains only 0-labeled pixels, it is initiated as a new track. If not, then 0 is removed from the possible ID labels and the matching is done as previously.