Commissioning #19
Commissioning #19
Conversation
Respects joint limits if provided.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #19 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 91.66% 85.19% -6.48%
==========================================
Files 6 6
Lines 396 412 +16
==========================================
- Hits 363 351 -12
- Misses 33 61 +28
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
tests/test_icrestimator.py
Outdated
| @@ -82,6 +102,79 @@ def test_estimate_lambda(): | |||
| # assert np.allclose(desired_lmda, lmda_e.T, atol=tolerance) | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| @pytest.mark.skip("Closeness calculations not quite working yet") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It only fails some of the time, because sometimes the random values are bad.
It would be better to change them to fixed "errors" to get deterministic behaviour.
Do you still thing xpass is more appropriate in this case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, I see. The pytest docs seem to suggest that marking as xfail with strict=False is an appropriate way of marking a flaky test. An xfail mark will still allow the test to run.
…r different time steps)
…es error per module
No description provided.