Skip to content

Conversation

@Jutho
Copy link
Member

@Jutho Jutho commented Mar 20, 2025

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 20, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/algorithms.jl 80.70% <100.00%> (+6.89%) ⬆️
src/implementations/eig.jl 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/implementations/eigh.jl 98.41% <100.00%> (+0.10%) ⬆️
src/implementations/lq.jl 98.19% <100.00%> (+0.13%) ⬆️
src/implementations/orthnull.jl 97.70% <100.00%> (+0.17%) ⬆️
src/implementations/polar.jl 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/implementations/qr.jl 97.36% <100.00%> (+0.19%) ⬆️
src/implementations/schur.jl 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/implementations/svd.jl 94.65% <100.00%> (+0.44%) ⬆️
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Member

@lkdvos lkdvos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me.

Do you know if there would be a difference if we try to achieve the same thing with functions instead of macros? I have no strong opinions against this, it's just slightly more hidden what we are actually testing for now.

@Jutho
Copy link
Member Author

Jutho commented Mar 21, 2025

The macro is macro only in order to capture the symbol or expression of the variable, and have it printed in the error message.

@Jutho Jutho merged commit 47cef6e into main Mar 28, 2025
9 checks passed
@Jutho Jutho deleted the jh/checkmacros branch March 28, 2025 21:35
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