Fix conditional expression in txfunc.py #846
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #846 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.24% 82.23% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 18 18
Lines 3981 3985 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 3274 3277 +3
- Misses 707 708 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
|
@rickecon This PR is ready for review. Without the change, integration of the microsimulation model in OG-IND in PR #16 fails when it reaches this condition. |
|
@jdebacker. Looks good to me. |
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes a bug in a conditional expression in
txfunc.py. Given the multiple conditions and the strict equality condition, conditions were not evaluated in the expected way (see this Stack Overflow thread on the precedence of&and==).