Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix accessing preequilibrationConditionId without checking for presence #228

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 17, 2023

Conversation

dweindl
Copy link
Member

@dweindl dweindl commented Sep 19, 2023

Fixes a bug in petab.visualize.data_overview.create_report which fails if there is no preequilibrationConditionId column in the measurements table.

Fixes a bug in petab.visualize.data_overview.create_report which fails if there is no preequilibrationConditionId column in the measurements table.
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 19, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #228 (a60ccc7) into develop (2c44efe) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #228      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    76.24%   76.24%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files           34       34              
  Lines         3183     3182       -1     
  Branches       773      773              
===========================================
- Hits          2427     2426       -1     
  Misses         555      555              
  Partials       201      201              
Files Changed Coverage Δ
petab/visualize/data_overview.py 96.87% <100.00%> (-0.10%) ⬇️

@dweindl dweindl requested a review from dilpath October 16, 2023 14:47
Copy link
Member

@dilpath dilpath left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

The old code assumes the existence of my_measurements[PREEQUILIBRATION_CONDITION_ID], so maybe this assumption is made elsewhere too and it's safer to create the PREEQUILIBRATION_CONDITION_ID key and fill it with dummy values here if it doesn't exist. I don't really know though, fine as is for me.

@dweindl
Copy link
Member Author

dweindl commented Oct 17, 2023

safer to create the PREEQUILIBRATION_CONDITION_ID key and fill it with dummy values here if it doesn't exist

Yes. That would be something to consider throughout the library. Has been discussed before, but without any clear conclusion (e.g. #27). I will leave it as is for now.

@dweindl dweindl merged commit 62d5ca8 into develop Oct 17, 2023
@dweindl dweindl deleted the fix_data_overview branch October 17, 2023 05:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants