8000 Fix clean_flicker_noise test for system differences by melanieclarke · Pull Request #8817 · spacetelescope/jwst · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Fix clean_flicker_noise test for system differences #8817

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 24, 2024
Merged

Fix clean_flicker_noise test for system differences #8817

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 24, 2024

Conversation

melanieclarke
Copy link
Collaborator
@melanieclarke melanieclarke commented Sep 23, 2024 •
edited
Loading

I noticed a unit test failure for the new clean_flicker_noise step in the numpy 2 regression test run (build 1737).

This was a coverage test, intended to evoke a linear algebra error, but it looks like the error is not evoked in the same way across all systems and dependency versions. I modified the test to monkeypatch in an error instead, which should be more robust.

Tasks

  • request a review from someone specific, to avoid making the maintainers review every PR
  • add a build milestone, i.e. Build 11.3 (use the latest build if not sure)
  • Does this PR change user-facing code / API?
    • add an entry to CHANGES.rst within the relevant release section (otherwise add the no-changelog-entry-needed label to this PR)
    • update or add relevant tests
    • update relevant docstrings and / or docs/ page
    • start a regression test and include a link to the running job (click here for instructions)
      • Do truth files need to be updated ("okified")?
        • after the reviewer has approved these changes, run okify_regtests to update the truth files
  • if a JIRA ticket exists, make sure it is resolved properly

@melanieclarke melanieclarke requested a review from a team as a code owner September 23, 2024 14:46
@codecov Codecov
Copy link
codecov bot commented Sep 23, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 61.86%. Comparing base (54d84c6) to head (eab0532).
Report is 464 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8817   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   61.86%   61.86%           
=======================================
  Files         377      377           
  Lines       38911    38911           
=======================================
  Hits        24071    24071           
  Misses      14840    14840

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

stscirij
stscirij approved these changes Sep 24, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor
@stscirij stscirij left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks good, assuming that the purpose of the test is to test that the routine returns None when a LinearAlgebra exception is thrown, not that the routine throws a LinearAlgebra exception in the first place...

@melanieclarke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This looks good, assuming that the purpose of the test is to test that the routine returns None when a LinearAlgebra exception is thrown, not that the routine throws a LinearAlgebra exception in the first place...

Yes, exactly that! I happened to come across a real LinearAlgebra exception on my own machine in testing, which is why I originally wrote it that way, but the test is just to make sure the routine handles exceptions. Thanks for reviewing.

@melanieclarke melanieclarke merged commit e8ba844 into spacetelescope:main Sep 24, 2024
29 checks passed
@melanieclarke melanieclarke deleted the fix_cfn_test branch October 3, 2024 20:25
Sign up for free 629C to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@stscirij stscirij stscirij approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
no-changelog-entry-needed testing
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@melanieclarke @stscirij
0