Skip to content

TableCollection force_offset_64 #1602

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
Aug 4, 2021
Merged

TableCollection force_offset_64 #1602

merged 2 commits into from
Aug 4, 2021

Conversation

jeromekelleher
Copy link
Member

Closes #1598

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 2, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Merging #1602 (c855b64) into main (fe295a1) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1602      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.67%   93.67%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          27       27              
  Lines       23287    23278       -9     
  Branches     1084     1084              
==========================================
- Hits        21815    21806       -9     
  Misses       1438     1438              
  Partials       34       34
Flag Coverage Δ
c-tests 91.85% <ø> (ø)
lwt-tests 93.40% <ø> (ø)
python-c-tests 95.41% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
python-tests 98.80% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
python/_tskitmodule.c 92.18% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
python/tskit/tables.py 98.88% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fe295a1...c855b64. Read the comment docs.

@jeromekelleher jeromekelleher mentioned this pull request Aug 2, 2021
Closed
@jeromekelleher jeromekelleher marked this pull request as ready for review August 4, 2021 05:26
@jeromekelleher
Copy link
Member Author

This should be ready to go @benjeffery. The last commit is a bit of a drive-by, but I spotted a case where we were rerunning a bunch of tests for no benefit, and it was an easy fix.

benjeffery
benjeffery approved these changes Aug 4, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@benjeffery benjeffery left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Excellent, we're almost there with 64bit offsets!

python/tests/test_lowlevel.py
assert tc1.equals(tc2)

def test_asdict_bad_args(self):
ts = msprime.simulate(10, random_seed=1242)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You could use simple_degree1_ts_fixture here, but I don't feel strongly about it.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was following the conventions in the rest of the class, so I don't think it's worth changing to a fixture here.

@benjeffery
Copy link
Member

I've also run stress_lowlevel here. Seems all good at 200 iterations, will leave it running a bit more.

@mergify mergify bot merged commit 9477fdd into tskit-dev:main Aug 4, 2021
@jeromekelleher jeromekelleher deleted the force-64-tc-asdict branch August 4, 2021 12:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@benjeffery benjeffery benjeffery approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add force_offset64 option to TableCollection.asdict
2 participants
@jeromekelleher @benjeffery