(Closes #2812) max and min code update#3408
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3408 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.96% 99.96%
=======================================
Files 389 389
Lines 54541 54548 +7
=======================================
+ Hits 54522 54529 +7
Misses 19 19 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
arporter
left a comment
arporter
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice, thanks Aidan. Just a bit of docstring tidying to do and there's a (simple) test failure that needs fixing. Once you've done that, please could you launch the ITs too...
| Check that it is safe to apply the transformation to the supplied node. | ||
|
|
||
| :param node: the SIGN call to transform. | ||
| :type node: :py:class:`psyclone.psyir.nodes.IntrinsicCall` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added, also added the kwargs that I'd missed and fixed the typehints. I removed the options typehints since they're deprecated now.
|
Am hoping the test will just work this time as I'm a bit confused as I can't replicate it locally (any more). If not I'll dive deeper. |
|
@arporter I have "fixed" the tree sitter issues now I think. I would ask if you could test locally as well and check you have no issues with your local version. I'm not sure why these tests have suddenly started failing, I tried running on another branch as well and they also have failures that weren't present last week. As far as I can find there has been no treesitter or treesitter-fortarn new release so its very strange. |
LonelyCat124
temporarily deployed
to
integration
GitHub Actions
Inactive
|
Hi @LonelyCat124, I've just tried locally (with 3.13) and I get one treesitter-related failure with this branch. If I switch to latest master it goes away. It could be something to do with tests leaking state? |
|
Set the ITs going - assume they are successful this is ready for another look. |
2 participants
Small PR to ensure the max2code and min2code transformations use the datatype of their arguments correctly, and don't assume scalar real.
Ready for review from @arporter when he's back - its possible I missed something I should have added but I'm not sure.