search

xKDR / TSFrames.jl

Timeseries in Julia
MIT License
91 stars 22 forks source link

Package name changed to `TimeFrames`. #111

Closed codetalker7 closed 1 year ago

codetalker7 commented 1 year ago

As suggested in https://github.com/xKDR/TSx.jl/issues/66, this PR changes the package name to TimeFrames and the struct name to TimeFrame.

codecov-commenter commented 1 year ago

Codecov Report

Merging #111 (600bae3) into main (0d0ad78) will decrease coverage by 0.48%. The diff coverage is 89.94%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #111      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.40%   88.91%   -0.49%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines         368      370       +2     
==========================================
  Hits          329      329              
- Misses         39       41       +2
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/plot.jl 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/utils.jl 81.08% <80.00%> (ø)
src/TimeFrame.jl 95.00% <88.23%> (ø)
src/tables.jl 90.00% <90.00%> (ø)
src/join.jl 87.50% <90.90%> (ø)
src/getindex.jl 91.15% <96.96%> (ø)
src/TimeFrames.jl 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/apply.jl 90.47% <100.00%> (ø)
src/broadcasting.jl 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/diff.jl 83.33% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 10 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

ayushpatnaikgit commented 1 year ago

I think it's good to merge

chiraganand commented 1 year ago 
==========================================
- Coverage   89.40%   88.91%   -0.49%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines         368      370       +2     
==========================================
  Hits          329      329              
- Misses         39       41       +2

How come the coverage is getting reduced after renaming? There are two lines which are getting missed.

codetalker7 commented 1 year ago 
==========================================
- Coverage   89.40%   88.91%   -0.49%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines         368      370       +2     
==========================================
  Hits          329      329              
- Misses         39       41       +2

How come the coverage is getting reduced after renaming? There are two lines which are getting missed.

Yeah this is a bit weird. Codecov is not showing which lines are missed either. Could it be because of some test which is uses randomization without a random seed?

codetalker7 commented 1 year ago

We can try running the Codecov job again to verify if this is indeed the case.

chiraganand commented 1 year ago 
==========================================
- Coverage   89.40%   88.91%   -0.49%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines         368      370       +2     
==========================================
  Hits          329      329              
- Misses         39       41       +2

How come the coverage is getting reduced after renaming? There are two lines which are getting missed.

Yeah this is a bit weird. Codecov is not showing which lines are missed either. Could it be because of some test which is uses randomization without a random seed?

Usually, when Codecov doesn't show the diff then there is something wrong with the history of codecov CI runs. I saw there were two failed CI runs (macOS timing out) in the master a few commits behind, I have restarted them. Let us see if that fixes it.

chiraganand commented 1 year ago 
==========================================
- Coverage   89.40%   88.91%   -0.49%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines         368      370       +2     
==========================================
  Hits          329      329              
- Misses         39       41       +2

How come the coverage is getting reduced after renaming? There are two lines which are getting missed.

Yeah this is a bit weird. Codecov is not showing which lines are missed either. Could it be because of some test which is uses randomization without a random seed?

Usually, when Codecov doesn't show the diff then there is something wrong with the history of codecov CI runs. I saw there were two failed CI runs (macOS timing out) in the master a few commits behind, I have restarted them. Let us see if that fixes it.

Re-run of the codecov job in this PR fixed the Codecov output but the full output doesn't show any file which has decreased in test coverage only the top level percentage is shown to be decreased by 0.48%. Don't know why this is happening but guess we can leave this investigation for later.