-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
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
Structured validation results #1104
Conversation
Codecov ReportBase: 88.05% // Head: 88.04% // Decreases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1104 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.05% 88.04% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 73 73
Lines 8586 8727 +141
==========================================
+ Hits 7560 7684 +124
- Misses 1026 1043 +17
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 72a51fb into ef097cc - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 2c78bcf into e74c5ac - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 7a5239c into e74c5ac - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 0f44a23 into e74c5ac - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging afa56ac into e74c5ac - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging af9f3db into e74c5ac - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging f92b1e3 into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 0508f49 into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 90f2819 into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 7075a7c into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging d0753e8 into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 9576526 into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging bf0e17e into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 8928e26 into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 5aa69e9 into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 7e54f3c into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 8510722 into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 2be5aaa into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 1b15e6d into 17e0b04 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
Still using 2 separate functions, merging of validation functions best for subsequent PR
and renamed tests for more consistency
@jwodder thank you, yes, the error no longer happens. Apparently there was another one, but I fixed that as well. @yarikoptic ready for merge? |
ok, let's merge and then tune up from there. Thanks @TheChymera and @jwodder for the reviews. |
selected_dataset = os.path.join(bids_examples, dataset) | ||
validation_result = validate_bids(selected_dataset, report=True) | ||
for i in validation_result: | ||
assert not hasattr(i, "severtiy") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@TheChymera Is this typo deliberate? If it is, what's the point? If it's not, shouldn't you instead be testing that the attribute is None
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jwodder thank you for spotting this, indeed it was an error, and further, it was giving a false positive arising from an upstream oversight. Will sumbit a fix PR once the reference data is fixed, since currently fixing this would fail due to the data being broken.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Closes #943.