-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Consolidate Python config files #94
Conversation
fb7c06f
to
dbe249c
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #94 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 96.87% 96.81% -0.06%
==========================================
Files 6 6
Lines 160 157 -3
==========================================
- Hits 155 152 -3
Misses 5 5 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
openff/utilities/testing.py
Outdated
raise ValueError("Bad type passed to skip_if_missing_exec. " f"Found type {type(exec)}") | ||
|
||
found_exec = False | ||
for exec_ in execs: | ||
found_exec = found_exec or has_executable(exec_) | ||
|
||
reason = f"Package {str(exec)} is required, but was not found." | ||
reason = f"Package {exec!s} is required, but was not found." |
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.
(not blocking) both of these seem weird/worse to me. Maybe a weird interaction with a formatting tool? Not blocking either way, just stood out.
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.
It's probably an unnecessary cast tbh, but it's not going to be called at scale so the runtime penalty is small. I'm going to leave it as-is until it presents an issue
Description
pyproject.toml
versioningit
ruff
pixi
support doesn't interact in surprising waysStatus