-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
FIX: fix AttributeError Xtick has no attribute label #84
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #84 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 54.28% 54.23% -0.05%
==========================================
Files 22 22
Lines 2019 2019
Branches 391 391
==========================================
- Hits 1096 1095 -1
Misses 845 845
- Partials 78 79 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggestion. This mirrors nipreps/niworkflows#820. Assuming we also have confounds_correlation_plot
and plot_melodic_components
, we should update those as well.
Co-authored-by: Chris Markiewicz <effigies@gmail.com>
ee6852b
to
8f941bc
Compare
LGTM. Would it be reasonably quick to port over the unit tests, or should we push that off for the moment? |
Oh good. I didn't realize that the missing coverage was covered by the tests Taylor just added. |
@effigies, but why is codecov complaining that the new lines are not covered by the test then? |
Hmm. I thought the branches just weren't merged together, but it looks like the merge commit also didn't see these as covered: https://app.codecov.io/gh/nipreps/nireports/commit/9f62aca1759406934157255ebb4a66edd1bc8ea0 |
No description provided.