-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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
Added badges to README.md #80
Conversation
hotfix - exported script names
…le to detec header
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.
If you could roll back this commit, and start working on the mean_stdv in a separate branch in your own repo (I’d recommend a branch called feature/mean-np
), that would keep this particular PR cleaner.
All checks are failing, but I think that must be an issue with the GitHub CI, since it’s complaining on the import of numpy that there’s no such module. This PR looks bigger than it is, I think because of the issue I introduced at some point where there’s duplicated commits with different hashes. But, there’s a also at least two different things being contributed here, I think:
It’ll keep the PRs cleaner if separate “features” like this were committed to separate branches in your own repo, and then you can send the pull request do dev from that feature branch, rather than from your master branch. Here, if you just roll back the final commit here where you introduce the numpy tests, that’ll clean things up for this specific PR. |
README.md
Outdated
@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ There may be a delay between when a bug is reported and when a bug is resolved. | |||
|
|||
## Attribution | |||
[![DOI](https://zenodo.org/badge/doi/10.5281/zenodo.22281.svg)](http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22281) |
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.
While you’re sprucing up the shields, could you replace this zenodo shield with this:
[![DOI](https://zenodo.org/badge/13744621.svg)](https://zenodo.org/badge/latestdoi/13744621)
The current shield points at a particular DOI (which I think was all that was possible when I first set up the DOI minting). But the link pasted here will point to he most current DOI, which is the behavior we want.
README.md
Outdated
@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ There may be a delay between when a bug is reported and when a bug is resolved. | |||
|
|||
## Attribution | |||
[![DOI](https://zenodo.org/badge/doi/10.5281/zenodo.22281.svg)](http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22281) |
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.
You can do this with:
|
Thanks for the explanation. I now understand the usage of branches better :) I will do this tomorrow morning before Work :) Btw I follow you in LinkedIn ;-) maybe I can learn Something about this topic also there |
@JoFrhwld Yeah, apparently we don't install the package dependencies, just flake8 and pytest. Our set-up action can do this, see v3 documentation, so I'll add that in before this gets merged. |
This reverts commit 5983ed6.
I reverted the PR. I will add those requested changes later |
I added the changes @JoFrhwld
Is it the same version of DOI you mentioned? If yes, I will add it in another PR |
No description provided.