Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #140 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 68.61% 68.74% +0.13%
==========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 4684 4675 -9
==========================================
Hits 3214 3214
+ Misses 1470 1461 -9
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
The diff coverage is 0%. Why? Could it be not 0%? |
|
https://codecov.io/gh/pygae/galgebra/src/master/galgebra/ga.py#L1650
|
I'd perhaps rephrase that to witholding merging changes until we have coverage. Perhaps a tag for this type of pr would be useful. Having said that, in this case the change takes a mysterious function to a trivial one, so might be worth merging anyway - if you follow the code path for |
ok.
Better not. Sticking to the standard, coverage should be a prerequisite. |
This function did two things unnecessarily: * Convert blade reps to base rep before calling mul. This is already handled within `mul`, so there's no need to do it again at the call site. * Branch depending on the mode string - this branching is already handled by `Mul`
28bc58e to
16de7db
Compare
This function did two things unnecessarily:
mul, so there's no need to do it again at the call site.MulThis function is called only by
Ga.connection, which is not tested anywhere, so has no code coverage.