Volumes test

[EmmaRenauld]

Quick description

New tests for more code coverage, ye!!

Changes:

• volume_math:
  • Tests: added a test for the correlation method, was missing. Fixes issue #940 .
  • Methods: Moved sub-method (def correlate) out of the loop.
• volume operations:
  • Tests: Added 3 tests
  • Methods:
    • register_image: My initials tests failed because my fake images were too small. Took me a long time to figure out. Added a verification.
    • compute_snr: verified if both noise_mask and noise_map were given. Added more explanation.
• script scil_header_print_info: I wanted a faster way to print the affine. Added an option. You can tell me if there was an other way.

Type of change

Check the relevant options.

• [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• [ ] This change requires a documentation update

Provide data, screenshots, command line to test (if relevant)

...

Checklist

• [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project (run autopep8)
• [ ] I added relevant citations to scripts, modules and functions docstrings and descriptions
• [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code
• [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
• [ ] I moved all functions from the script file (except the argparser and main) to scilpy modules
• [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[pep8speaks]

Hello @EmmaRenauld, Thank you for updating !

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! :beers:

Comment last updated at 2024-05-06 18:07:34 UTC

[EmmaRenauld]

There were failing tests in test_reproducibility_measures. The error is fixed. But while searching for the error, I modified that other test quite a lot, and discovered that origin of SFT had an impact on results. Placed sft.to_corner() higher in tractogram_pairwise_comparison.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 81.53846% with 24 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.85%. Comparing base (deb254a) to head (480449d). Report is 16 commits behind head on master.

:exclamation: Current head 480449d differs from pull request most recent head 8d3f34d. Consider uploading reports for the commit 8d3f34d to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #942 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 68.00% 67.85% -0.15% ========================================== Files 419 419 Lines 21569 21604 +35 Branches 3242 3248 +6 ========================================== - Hits 14668 14660 -8 - Misses 5609 5653 +44 + Partials 1292 1291 -1 ``` | [Components](https://app.codecov.io/gh/scilus/scilpy/pull/942/components?src=pr&el=components&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=scilus) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [Scripts](https://app.codecov.io/gh/scilus/scilpy/pull/942/components?src=pr&el=component&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=scilus) | `68.96% <59.37%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | | [Library](https://app.codecov.io/gh/scilus/scilpy/pull/942/components?src=pr&el=component&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=scilus) | `66.19% <88.77%> (-0.36%)` | :arrow_down: |