8000 :bug: Fix some missed integration due to rebases by chris-ashe · Pull Request #3663 · ukaea/PROCESS · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

🐛 Fix some missed integration due to rebases #3663

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 16, 2025
Merged

Conversation

chris-ashe
Copy link
Collaborator
@chris-ashe chris-ashe commented May 16, 2025

This pull request introduces updates to the process/input.py and process/io/plot_proc.py files, focusing on extending input variable ranges, adding a new input variable, and updating variable names for consistency in plotting functions.

Input Variable Updates:

  • Added a new input variable, "f_c_plasma_bootstrap", with a range of (0.0, 1.0) in process/input.py.
  • Extended the range of the "i_density_limit" variable from (1, 7) to (1, 8) in process/input.py.

Plotting Function Updates:

  • Renamed the "neutron_power_total" variable to "p_neutron_total_mw" for consistency in process/io/plot_proc.py.
  • Updated several variable names in the fusion power summary to align with a consistent naming convention (e.g., "fusion_power" to "p_fusion_total_mw", "dt_power_total" to "p_dt_total_mw", etc.) in process/io/plot_proc.py.

Checklist

I confirm that I have completed the following checks:

  • My changes follow the PROCESS style guide
  • I have justified any large differences in the regression tests caused by this pull request in the comments.
  • I have added new tests where appropriate for the changes I have made.
  • If I have had to change any existing unit or integration tests, I have justified this change in the pull request comments.
  • If I have made documentation changes, I have checked they render correctly.
  • I have added documentation for my change, if appropriate.

@chris-ashe chris-ashe requested a review from timothy-nunn May 16, 2025 12:13
@codecov-commenter
Copy link
codecov-commenter commented May 16, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 36.35%. Comparing base (89f2296) to head (38aad22).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
process/io/plot_proc.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3663      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   36.27%   36.35%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          88       88              
  Lines       22231    23142     +911     
==========================================
+ Hits         8065     8413     +348     
- Misses      14166    14729     +563     

☔ 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.

@chris-ashe chris-ashe self-assigned this May 16, 2025
@chris-ashe chris-ashe added the Bug Something isn't working label May 16, 2025
@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn merged commit 1541b53 into main May 16, 2025
26 of 27 checks passed
@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn deleted the input_bugs branch May 16, 2025 13:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants
0