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

Validation: Fix validation protocol name check #87

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 29, 2023
Merged

Conversation

ilkilic
Copy link
Collaborator

@ilkilic ilkilic commented Nov 29, 2023

Address a bug found in the validation score retrieval process. Previously, the system incorrectly compared the feature name against the validation protocols.

@ilkilic ilkilic self-assigned this Nov 29, 2023
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (ca5c960) 61.34% compared to head (b9f88f3) 61.35%.
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #87   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   61.34%   61.35%           
=======================================
  Files          96       96           
  Lines        6592     6593    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits         4044     4045    +1     
  Misses       2548     2548           

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

Copy link
Collaborator

@AurelienJaquier AurelienJaquier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice catch!

@ilkilic ilkilic merged commit 0d187a5 into main Nov 29, 2023
6 checks passed
@ilkilic ilkilic deleted the fix-val-prot-scores branch November 29, 2023 13:46
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