Skip to content
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 setting mismatch when doing absolute amplitude extraction #178

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 21, 2024

Conversation

AurelienJaquier
Copy link
Collaborator

If name_rmp_protocol or name_Rin_protocol are set, then BPEM considers that we are doing threshold-based extraction, even if extract_absolute_amplitude is set. This PR should fix this.

Change-Id: I3936f2f3b6f90bcb46738c839b75acd225d60a07
@AurelienJaquier AurelienJaquier self-assigned this Nov 21, 2024
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Nov 21, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 25.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 52.37%. Comparing base (8d5b0ab) to head (4bd15a2).
Report is 126 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
bluepyemodel/emodel_pipeline/emodel_settings.py 25.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #178      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   60.07%   52.37%   -7.71%     
==========================================
  Files         109      124      +15     
  Lines        7838    10468    +2630     
==========================================
+ Hits         4709     5483     +774     
- Misses       3129     4985    +1856     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.


🚨 Try these New Features:

Change-Id: Ia3abea7eb5ffffb9634e857730f7ba45ea2ddbf3
Copy link
Collaborator

@ilkilic ilkilic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch!

@AurelienJaquier AurelienJaquier merged commit 609b136 into main Nov 21, 2024
6 checks passed
@AurelienJaquier AurelienJaquier deleted the absolute-extraction branch November 21, 2024 15:17
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