Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #282 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 75.65% 75.32% -0.33%
===========================================
Files 40 69 +29
Lines 4141 4256 +115
Branches 893 898 +5
===========================================
+ Hits 3133 3206 +73
- Misses 745 787 +42
Partials 263 263 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
8f0c2e2 to
ea81206
Compare
dilpath
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice!
I looked at most files and didn't see any issues 👍 I looked at petab/v1 less since I guess it's mostly copied.
Is it possible to include this in CI by running the tests with both like so?
import petab as petabv0
import petab.v1
petab = petabv0
# run tests
petab = petab.v1Should the tests also be split into tests/v1 and tests/v2?
Yes.
For now, I would keep running tests through the deprecated functions. If they pass there, I don't have much doubt that they will work through petab.v1, as effectively everything was moved there. Once we remove the old modules, I would switch the tests.
Yes, I think that makes sense. Will do that separately, though. |
As discussed in #271, we need to accommodate the changes related to the upcoming PEtab v2. The goal is to move PEtab 1.0 functionality to a
petab.v1subpackage and PEtab 2.0 functionality to apetab.v2subpackage.This PR moves (almost) all code from the
petabpackage to apetab.v1sub-package. Keeps all non-private objects importable from their previous location, but issuesDeprecationWarnings.From the next release on, all consumers should change all
from petab[.$x] import $ytofrom petab.v1[.$x] import $y.Fixes a couple of sphinx-issues that occurred on the way. Some obscure sphinx-failures remain, but they aren't critical.
Also adds some missing
__all__s.