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

Modify config #142

Open
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: next
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Modify config #142

wants to merge 13 commits into from

Conversation

glass-ships
Copy link
Member

@glass-ships glass-ships commented Mar 19, 2025

Description of work:

  • Renames ~/.refredm.conf to ~/.quicknxs.conf and removes functionality to read/write nearly all Q settings from this file.

    • It retains the ability to customize settings within the reduction pop-up dialog,
      as well as adding a button to reset the output filename template to the default.
    • This should make behavior more consistent between users and less dependent on subtle differences in environment/configuration.
  • It also writes scaling_error as an additional column to reduced data files, and adds backwards-compatible functionality to read in this new column.

  • Passively adds some type hinting, a util method for reading columns from reduced data, and some other small tweaks/formatting

Check all that apply:

  • added release notes
    (if not, provide an explanation in the work description)
  • updated documentation
  • Source added/refactored
  • Added unit tests
  • Added integration tests

References:

  • Links to IBM EWM items: Defect 8234
  • Links to related issues or pull requests:

Manual test for the reviewer

(instructions to set up the environment)

Check list for the reviewer

  • release notes updated,
    or an explanation is provided as to why release notes are unnecessary
  • best software practices
    • clearly named variables (better to be verbose in variable names)
    • code comments explaining the intent of code blocks
  • All the tests are passing
  • The documentation is up to date
  • code comments added when explaining intent

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 19, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.39535% with 157 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 60.24%. Comparing base (0778686) to head (8263d95).
Report is 94 commits behind head on next.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...quicknxs/interfaces/event_handlers/main_handler.py 76.38% 47 Missing ⚠️
...xs/interfaces/data_handling/processing_workflow.py 42.50% 23 Missing ⚠️
src/quicknxs/interfaces/data_manager.py 91.40% 11 Missing ⚠️
src/quicknxs/interfaces/main_window.py 85.33% 11 Missing ⚠️
src/quicknxs/interfaces/plotting.py 76.08% 11 Missing ⚠️
...rc/quicknxs/interfaces/data_handling/instrument.py 88.57% 8 Missing ⚠️
...nxs/interfaces/data_handling/DeadTimeCorrection.py 89.09% 6 Missing ⚠️
src/quicknxs/ui/deadtime_settings.py 83.78% 6 Missing ⚠️
src/quicknxs/gui.py 0.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
...c/quicknxs/interfaces/data_handling/quicknxs_io.py 96.15% 5 Missing ⚠️
... and 9 more
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             next     #142       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   35.43%   60.24%   +24.81%     
===========================================
  Files          30       34        +4     
  Lines        6067     6503      +436     
===========================================
+ Hits         2150     3918     +1768     
+ Misses       3917     2585     -1332     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@glass-ships glass-ships marked this pull request as ready for review March 26, 2025 17:53
@glass-ships glass-ships requested a review from mdoucet March 26, 2025 17:53
# FIXME 66 - could be an AttributeError from self.gisans(). Catch it!
self.gisans(progress=progress)
# -> Is this good enough?
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mdoucet do we want any additional handling when this exception is caught? i forgot i tried to handle that in this PR

@glass-ships glass-ships requested a review from backmari March 26, 2025 18:06
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