Feat/add moransi

[MxMstrmn]

Updated version of moran's I PR with pre-commits

A new approach to integrate #245

• [x] Transfer code to new branch (based on main)
• [ ] Which preprocessing needed?
• [ ] Pytest function
• [ ] Use scanpy implementation (https://github.com/scverse/scanpy/blob/master/scanpy/metrics/_morans_i.py,. https://scanpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/generated/scanpy.metrics.morans_i.html#scanpy-metrics-morans-i)
• [ ] Moran’s I → Moran’s I comparison
• [ ] Parameters of function
• [ ] Integrate in metrics wrapper methods

[MxMstrmn]

Hi @michalk8, do you have an idea why the checks fail here? The file locally has no syntax errors and also passes the pre-commits I added as part of this PR. Do not know how to handle this best / fix it.

[michalk8]

Done. Also, I'd seriously consider refactoring the CI to be more up-to-date. Interestingly, AST checker pre-commit did not catch this.

[MxMstrmn]

Why does f"{variable=}" fail the parse, is that not normal python syntax?

[MxMstrmn]

I did not set the CI up, I guess @mumichae and I would be very glad for your input to improve this :)

[michalk8]

Why does f"{variable=}" fail the parse, is that not normal python syntax?

It is, just from Python 3.8 (would deprecate 3.7 since numpy support ended last December), hence the refactoring.

[MxMstrmn]

Thanks so much, @michalk8!

[mumichae]

Done. Also, I'd seriously consider refactoring the CI to be more up-to-date. Interestingly, AST checker pre-commit did not catch this.

Are you referring to the .github/workflow content to be updated based on a newer configuration template? I wasn't aware there was an update, what consequences would the current code have of not updated?

Would be happy to update, however that would be in a separate PR.

[michalk8]

Are you referring to the .github/workflow content to be updated based on a newer configuration template? I wasn't aware there was an update, what consequences would the current code have of not updated?

Would do the following:

• remove 3.7 CI, add 3.9 (unless you need to support it)
• use pre-commits (add e.g. black) instead of running raw flake8 (this PR was)
• add tests coverage
• not sure how much work, but macOS test CI would be nice to have

The first 2 points I'd say are the one to focus on.

[mumichae]

Thanks a lot for the suggestions @michalk8 !

I think we should definitely make things more consistent, if we start using pre-commit (which we hadn't before). But I think this should be separated from Moran's I. I'll open a new issue with a description of what we'd need for pre-commit integration and would suggest we get that merged before the new metric.

[MxMstrmn]

Updated version of #303

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #304 (a8d2e08) into main (c993ffd) will increase coverage by 3.54%. The diff coverage is 96.70%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #304      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   53.35%   56.90%   +3.54%     
==========================================
  Files          35       37       +2     
  Lines        1981     2072      +91     
==========================================
+ Hits         1057     1179     +122     
+ Misses        924      893      -31     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittest	56.90% <96.70%> (+3.54%)	:arrow_up:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
scib/preprocessing.py	30.05% <50.00%> (+8.50%)	:arrow_up:
scib/metrics/morans_i.py	96.82% <96.82%> (ø)
scib/metrics/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
scib/metrics/metrics.py	82.29% <100.00%> (+0.97%)	:arrow_up:
tests/metrics/test_morans_i.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
scib/utils.py	74.46% <0.00%> (+12.76%)	:arrow_up: