pyiron / pyiron_workflow

Graph-and-node based workflows
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
14 stars 1 forks source link

Define error e if not defined #499

Closed samwaseda closed 5 hours ago

samwaseda commented 1 day ago

See lines changed

github-actions[bot] commented 1 day ago

Binder :point_left: Launch a binder notebook on branch _pyiron/pyiron_workflow/definee

codacy-production[bot] commented 1 day ago

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
:white_check_mark: -0.02% (target: -1.00%) :white_check_mark: 33.33%
Coverage variation details | | Coverable lines | Covered lines | Coverage | | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | | Common ancestor commit (9e776adc3cbcfefcfaa9357205ffc3ecf0540133) | 3375 | 3089 | 91.53% | | | Head commit (8a03e167a4232a2190e123bfb3f0259085e1e03d) | 3377 (+2) | 3090 (+1) | 91.50% (**-0.02%**) | **Coverage variation** is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: ` - `
Diff coverage details | | Coverable lines | Covered lines | Diff coverage | | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | | Pull request (#499) | 3 | 1 | **33.33%** | **Diff coverage** is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: `/ * 100%`

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more

coveralls commented 1 day ago

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 11948250445

Details


Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
storage.py 2 96.19%
<!-- Total: 2 -->
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 11943477483: -0.03%
Covered Lines: 3090
Relevant Lines: 3377

💛 - Coveralls
samwaseda commented 13 hours ago

Yeah there was an error related to this line that I couldn't really explain. In that moment it looked like this change would fix the problem, but it didn't, so we can also close this PR if you want.

liamhuber commented 5 hours ago

No no, this is formally correct so I'm ok with merging it