Conversation
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 7261a91 into c66fd18 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
Codecov ReportBase: 88.29% // Head: 89.08% // Increases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1154 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.29% 89.08% +0.78%
==========================================
Files 73 76 +3
Lines 8800 9444 +644
==========================================
+ Hits 7770 8413 +643
- Misses 1030 1031 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
|
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 242be00 into c66fd18 - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
…dation Use cached namespace validation
Update `test_validate_nwb_path_grouping` test
Fix typing error under mypy 0.990
No longer mark `test_rename_type_mismatch` as xfailing
also improved test function docstrings
there must be a better way of putting longer links in docstrings...
Renamed failing test, added use case for NWBI warning.
with the appropriate error message if there is only one, and a period if not.
Corrected reporting function logic to complete group message variable
Add CodeQL workflow for GitHub code scanning and fix few bugs it detected
Add validation of filepaths for non-BIDS NWB assets
…onResult It also caused another kaboom within hdmf bubbling up through nwbinspector, filed NeurodataWithoutBorders/nwbinspector#329
BF: convert str errors from checking nwb version into proper ValidationResult
|
@TheChymera what is the roadmap for this PR? |
Allow user to specify mandatory (if not empty) fields in organize
Update client for change in Zarr entries API
Upload test to check for metadata
|
Merge conflicts after #1164 (which did part of what I was trying to do here but just for |
|
ok, so this blew up in my face :( |
Currently non-working. The main problem seems to be that the old (functional) design ran the validation from
validate.py, whereas the new (object-oriented) design runs it as part of the asset instantiation. This makes a lot of things a bit confusing. Currently the immediate issue is that if we validate via BIDS object instantiation, we get the same error reported over and over. Probably has to do with the vanilla validation function usingyieldversusreturn... Will continue digging, though comments are appreciated @yarikoptic @jwodderI'm currently testing this on
DANDI:000108: