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

resolve green ci #1293

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Sep 20, 2024
Merged

resolve green ci #1293

merged 9 commits into from
Sep 20, 2024

Conversation

shajoezhu
Copy link
Contributor

@shajoezhu shajoezhu commented Sep 3, 2024

close #1282

@shajoezhu shajoezhu added the sme label Sep 3, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 3, 2024

Unit Tests Summary

    1 files     83 suites   1m 11s ⏱️
  851 tests   839 ✅  12 💤 0 ❌
1 828 runs  1 150 ✅ 678 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit a1e53fc.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 3, 2024

Unit Test Performance Difference

Test Suite $Status$ Time on main $±Time$ $±Tests$ $±Skipped$ $±Failures$ $±Errors$
analyze_vars_in_cols 💔 $2.38$ $+3.22$ $+17$ $-7$ $0$ $0$
count_occurrences 💔 $0.72$ $+1.60$ $+10$ $-8$ $0$ $0$
summarize_coxreg 💔 $3.09$ $+2.39$ $+13$ $-13$ $0$ $0$
summarize_num_patients 💔 $1.02$ $+1.37$ $+18$ $-16$ $0$ $0$
utils_rtables 💔 $3.18$ $+1.15$ $+16$ $-19$ $0$ $0$
Additional test case details
Test Suite $Status$ Time on main $±Time$ Test Case
analyze_vars_in_cols 💔 $0.47$ $+1.46$ summarize_works_with_nested_analyze

Results for commit 00f2133

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 3, 2024

badge

Code Coverage Summary

Filename                                   Stmts    Miss  Cover    Missing
---------------------------------------  -------  ------  -------  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R/abnormal_by_baseline.R                      65       0  100.00%
R/abnormal_by_marked.R                        55       5  90.91%   92-96
R/abnormal_by_worst_grade_worsen.R           116       3  97.41%   262-264
R/abnormal_by_worst_grade.R                   60       0  100.00%
R/abnormal.R                                  43       0  100.00%
R/analyze_variables.R                        166       2  98.80%   492, 632
R/analyze_vars_in_cols.R                     176      13  92.61%   178, 221, 235-236, 244-252
R/bland_altman.R                              92       1  98.91%   43
R/combination_function.R                       9       0  100.00%
R/compare_variables.R                         84       2  97.62%   255, 314
R/control_incidence_rate.R                    10       0  100.00%
R/control_logistic.R                           7       0  100.00%
R/control_step.R                              23       1  95.65%   58
R/control_survival.R                          15       0  100.00%
R/count_cumulative.R                          50       1  98.00%   73
R/count_missed_doses.R                        34       0  100.00%
R/count_occurrences_by_grade.R               113       1  99.12%   166
R/count_occurrences.R                        115       1  99.13%   115
R/count_patients_events_in_cols.R             67       1  98.51%   59
R/count_patients_with_event.R                 47       0  100.00%
R/count_patients_with_flags.R                 58       0  100.00%
R/count_values.R                              27       0  100.00%
R/cox_regression_inter.R                     154       0  100.00%
R/cox_regression.R                           161       0  100.00%
R/coxph.R                                    167       7  95.81%   191-195, 238, 253, 261, 267-268
R/d_pkparam.R                                406       0  100.00%
R/decorate_grob.R                            113       0  100.00%
R/desctools_binom_diff.R                     621      64  89.69%   53, 88-89, 125-126, 129, 199, 223-232, 264, 266, 286, 290, 294, 298, 353, 356, 359, 362, 422, 430, 439, 444-447, 454, 457, 466, 469, 516-517, 519-520, 522-523, 525-526, 593, 604-616, 620, 663, 676, 680
R/df_explicit_na.R                            30       0  100.00%
R/estimate_multinomial_rsp.R                  50       1  98.00%   64
R/estimate_proportion.R                      205      11  94.63%   82-89, 93, 98, 319, 485
R/fit_rsp_step.R                              36       0  100.00%
R/fit_survival_step.R                         36       0  100.00%
R/formatting_functions.R                     183       2  98.91%   143, 278
R/g_forest.R                                 585      59  89.91%   241, 253-256, 261-262, 278, 288-291, 336-339, 346, 415, 502, 515, 519-520, 525-526, 539, 555, 602, 633, 708, 717, 723, 742, 797-817, 820, 831, 850, 905, 908, 1043-1048
R/g_ipp.R                                    133       0  100.00%
R/g_km.R                                     350      57  83.71%   286-289, 308-310, 364-367, 401, 429, 433-476, 483-487
R/g_lineplot.R                               243      22  90.95%   196, 370-377, 416-426, 518, 526
R/g_step.R                                    68       1  98.53%   109
R/g_waterfall.R                               47       0  100.00%
R/h_adsl_adlb_merge_using_worst_flag.R        73       0  100.00%
R/h_biomarkers_subgroups.R                    46       0  100.00%
R/h_cox_regression.R                         110       0  100.00%
R/h_km.R                                     508      41  91.93%   137, 189-194, 287, 378, 380-381, 392-394, 413, 420-421, 423-425, 433-435, 460, 465-468, 651-654, 1108-1119
R/h_logistic_regression.R                    468       3  99.36%   203-204, 273
R/h_map_for_count_abnormal.R                  54       0  100.00%
R/h_pkparam_sort.R                            15       0  100.00%
R/h_response_biomarkers_subgroups.R           90      12  86.67%   50-55, 107-112
R/h_response_subgroups.R                     178      18  89.89%   257-270, 329-334
R/h_stack_by_baskets.R                        64       1  98.44%   89
R/h_step.R                                   180       0  100.00%
R/h_survival_biomarkers_subgroups.R           88       6  93.18%   111-116
R/h_survival_duration_subgroups.R            207      18  91.30%   259-271, 336-341
R/imputation_rule.R                           17       0  100.00%
R/incidence_rate.R                           100       7  93.00%   47-54
R/logistic_regression.R                      102       0  100.00%
R/missing_data.R                              21       3  85.71%   32, 66, 76
R/odds_ratio.R                               109       0  100.00%
R/prop_diff_test.R                            91       0  100.00%
R/prop_diff.R                                265      15  94.34%   69-72, 104, 289-296, 439, 604
R/prune_occurrences.R                         57       0  100.00%
R/response_biomarkers_subgroups.R             69       6  91.30%   196-201
R/response_subgroups.R                       213       8  96.24%   100-105, 260-261
R/riskdiff.R                                  65       5  92.31%   102-105, 114
R/rtables_access.R                            38       0  100.00%
R/score_occurrences.R                         20       1  95.00%   124
R/split_cols_by_groups.R                      49       0  100.00%
R/stat.R                                      59       0  100.00%
R/summarize_ancova.R                         106       2  98.11%   182, 187
R/summarize_change.R                          30       0  100.00%
R/summarize_colvars.R                         10       0  100.00%
R/summarize_coxreg.R                         172       0  100.00%
R/summarize_glm_count.R                      209       3  98.56%   192-193, 489
R/summarize_num_patients.R                    94       4  95.74%   116-118, 265
R/summarize_patients_exposure_in_cols.R       96       1  98.96%   55
R/survival_biomarkers_subgroups.R             78       6  92.31%   117-122
R/survival_coxph_pairwise.R                   79      11  86.08%   50-51, 63-71
R/survival_duration_subgroups.R              211       6  97.16%   124-129
R/survival_time.R                             79       0  100.00%
R/survival_timepoint.R                       113       7  93.81%   124-130
R/utils_checkmate.R                           68       0  100.00%
R/utils_default_stats_formats_labels.R       124       0  100.00%
R/utils_factor.R                             109       2  98.17%   84, 302
R/utils_ggplot.R                             110       0  100.00%
R/utils_grid.R                               126       5  96.03%   164, 279-286
R/utils_rtables.R                            100       4  96.00%   39, 46, 403-404
R/utils_split_funs.R                          52       2  96.15%   82, 94
R/utils.R                                    141       7  95.04%   118, 121, 124, 128, 137-138, 332
TOTAL                                      10483     459  95.62%

Diff against main

Filename        Stmts    Miss  Cover
------------  -------  ------  -------
R/g_forest.R        0      -1  +0.17%
TOTAL               0      -1  +0.01%

Results for commit: a1e53fc

Minimum allowed coverage is 80%

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results

Copy link
Contributor

@Melkiades Melkiades left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm! Just need to fix url ;)

shajoezhu and others added 3 commits September 4, 2024 10:08
Signed-off-by: Davide Garolini <davide.garolini@roche.com>
@shajoezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't really want to drop "nestcolor::theme_nest()" from the g_lineplot default option, reason being this is primarily used by roche, and the nest default values are set for a reason,

I don't want to replace the usage of nestcolor either, feel like this is going backwards, and adding code that we have to maintain in tern ...

one possibility is to move nestcolor from suggests to import @pawelru @khatril , what do you guys think?

@pawelru
Copy link
Contributor

pawelru commented Sep 6, 2024

so my comment was only about individual unit test
I'm totally with you when it comes to the examples and the functionality as a whole

@shajoezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

block this PR by #1311

@shajoezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

let's merge this in, and come back to resolve the green ci issue in future PRs

@shajoezhu shajoezhu merged commit 0bc1963 into main Sep 20, 2024
29 checks passed
@shajoezhu shajoezhu deleted the 1281_green_Ci branch September 20, 2024 02:00
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 20, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

CI green for https://github.com/pawelru/ie_status?tab=readme-ov-file
3 participants