Skip to content

TableCollection force_offset_64 #1602

New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 4, 2021

Conversation

jeromekelleher
Copy link
Member

Closes #1598

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 2, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #1602 (c855b64) into main (fe295a1) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1602      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.67%   93.67%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          27       27              
  Lines       23287    23278       -9     
  Branches     1084     1084              
==========================================
- Hits        21815    21806       -9     
  Misses       1438     1438              
  Partials       34       34              
Flag Coverage Δ
c-tests 91.85% <ø> (ø)
lwt-tests 93.40% <ø> (ø)
python-c-tests 95.41% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
python-tests 98.80% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

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

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
python/_tskitmodule.c 92.18% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
python/tskit/tables.py 98.88% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fe295a1...c855b64. Read the comment docs.

@jeromekelleher
Copy link
Member Author

This should be ready to go @benjeffery. The last commit is a bit of a drive-by, but I spotted a case where we were rerunning a bunch of tests for no benefit, and it was an easy fix.

Copy link
Member

@benjeffery benjeffery left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Excellent, we're almost there with 64bit offsets!

assert tc1.equals(tc2)

def test_asdict_bad_args(self):
ts = msprime.simulate(10, random_seed=1242)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You could use simple_degree1_ts_fixture here, but I don't feel strongly about it.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was following the conventions in the rest of the class, so I don't think it's worth changing to a fixture here.

@benjeffery
Copy link
Member

I've also run stress_lowlevel here. Seems all good at 200 iterations, will leave it running a bit more.

@benjeffery benjeffery added the AUTOMERGE-REQUESTED Ask Mergify to merge this PR label Aug 4, 2021
@mergify mergify bot merged commit 9477fdd into tskit-dev:main Aug 4, 2021
@mergify mergify bot removed the AUTOMERGE-REQUESTED Ask Mergify to merge this PR label Aug 4, 2021
@jeromekelleher jeromekelleher deleted the force-64-tc-asdict branch August 4, 2021 12:02
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add force_offset64 option to TableCollection.asdict
2 participants