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

Call remove call and remove hook transformations on contained subroutines #163

Merged

Conversation

rolfhm
Copy link
Contributor

@rolfhm rolfhm commented Oct 5, 2023

Main will not call the remove_call and remove_hook on contained routines, resulting in code that does not compile. This PR adds calls on any member routines as well

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 5, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #163 (780256c) into main (19fd1c4) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
Report is 19 commits behind head on main.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #163      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.10%   92.12%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          90       90              
  Lines       16628    16689      +61     
==========================================
+ Hits        15315    15374      +59     
- Misses       1313     1315       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ
lint_rules 96.22% <ø> (ø)
loki 92.09% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
transformations 91.35% <100.00%> (+0.09%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Coverage Δ
...ransformations/transformations/utility_routines.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes

Copy link
Collaborator

@mlange05 mlange05 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @rolfhm, agreed that this makes sense, and is probably an oversight in the original implementation.

However, would you mind adding a test to ensure that this does not break in the future? I believe there's already a set of similar tests for these routines in transformations/tests/test_utility_routines.py.

@rolfhm
Copy link
Contributor Author

rolfhm commented Oct 9, 2023

Added testing functionality now
I think there is the same issue for associate statements, but those require more than a line of code to deal with

Copy link
Collaborator

@mlange05 mlange05 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for adding the test. This looks GTG now, once rebased. :shipit:

@reuterbal reuterbal merged commit 0709e18 into ecmwf-ifs:main Oct 10, 2023
8 of 12 checks passed
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