Closed realratchet closed 9 months ago
Did I just trigger that 1/100 in the tests? The same tests passed in fork.
Attention: 52 lines
in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Comparison is base (
3f54136
) 82.05% compared to head (74032e3
) 82.07%.
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
tablite/joins.py | 84.09% | 45 Missing :warning: |
tablite/base.py | 76.47% | 4 Missing :warning: |
tablite/merge.py | 81.25% | 3 Missing :warning: |
:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Maybe it's because we don't use the original table class but tablite.base.Table
probably should be renamed to BaseTable
to avoid namespace confusion.
Although if it's an issue with constructor why would be be non-deterministic in single process tasks?
Maybe it's because we don't use the original table class but
tablite.base.Table
probably should be renamed toBaseTable
to avoid namespace confusion.
Rename is a good idea 👍
Recreating the #124 pull request because it got accidentally pushed to tablite instead of fork. Also fixed some leftover issues with typing because 3.9 doesn't support pipe union operator.