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

Fix sonar scan failures on AMI changes #9112

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 30, 2025

Conversation

emolter
Copy link
Collaborator

@emolter emolter commented Jan 29, 2025

This PR addresses these sonar scan failures.

Tasks

  • request a review from someone specific, to avoid making the maintainers review every PR
  • add a build milestone, i.e. Build 11.3 (use the latest build if not sure)
  • Does this PR change user-facing code / API? (if not, label with no-changelog-entry-needed)
    • write news fragment(s) in changes/: echo "changed something" > changes/<PR#>.<changetype>.rst (see below for change types)
    • update or add relevant tests
    • update relevant docstrings and / or docs/ page
    • start a regression test and include a link to the running job (click here for instructions)
      • Do truth files need to be updated ("okified")?
        • after the reviewer has approved these changes, run okify_regtests to update the truth files
  • if a JIRA ticket exists, make sure it is resolved properly
news fragment change types...
  • changes/<PR#>.general.rst: infrastructure or miscellaneous change
  • changes/<PR#>.docs.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.stpipe.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.datamodels.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.scripts.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.fits_generator.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.set_telescope_pointing.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.pipeline.rst

stage 1

  • changes/<PR#>.group_scale.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.dq_init.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.emicorr.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.saturation.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.ipc.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.firstframe.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.lastframe.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.reset.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.superbias.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.refpix.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.linearity.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.rscd.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.persistence.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.dark_current.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.charge_migration.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.jump.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.clean_flicker_noise.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.ramp_fitting.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.gain_scale.rst

stage 2

  • changes/<PR#>.assign_wcs.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.badpix_selfcal.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.msaflagopen.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.nsclean.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.imprint.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.background.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.extract_2d.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.master_background.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.wavecorr.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.srctype.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.straylight.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.wfss_contam.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.flatfield.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.fringe.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.pathloss.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.barshadow.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.photom.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.pixel_replace.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.resample_spec.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.residual_fringe.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.cube_build.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.extract_1d.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.resample.rst

stage 3

  • changes/<PR#>.assign_mtwcs.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.mrs_imatch.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.tweakreg.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.skymatch.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.exp_to_source.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.outlier_detection.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.tso_photometry.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.stack_refs.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.align_refs.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.klip.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.spectral_leak.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.source_catalog.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.combine_1d.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.ami.rst

other

  • changes/<PR#>.wfs_combine.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.white_light.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.cube_skymatch.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.engdb_tools.rst
  • changes/<PR#>.guider_cds.rst

@github-actions github-actions bot added the ami label Jan 29, 2025
@emolter emolter marked this pull request as ready for review January 29, 2025 21:39
@emolter emolter requested a review from a team as a code owner January 29, 2025 21:39
@melanieclarke
Copy link
Collaborator

Looks fine to me. Have you run it through regtests to make sure the sonar scan is happy?

@emolter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

emolter commented Jan 29, 2025

Yeah I just started them here https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/13040968131

I may have been a bit eager to smash the "ready for review" button

Edit: all passing

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 29, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 20.00000% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.36%. Comparing base (6d67730) to head (a0bfbaf).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
jwst/ami/ami_analyze_step.py 20.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9112      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   78.36%   78.36%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         505      505              
  Lines       45994    45995       +1     
==========================================
  Hits        36042    36042              
- Misses       9952     9953       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ *Carryforward flag
nightly 77.77% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 604780c

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Collaborator

@braingram braingram left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Sonar scan passed with these changes.

@emolter emolter merged commit 2cfb80d into spacetelescope:main Jan 30, 2025
22 of 23 checks passed
@emolter emolter deleted the sonarscan-fix-ami branch January 30, 2025 15:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants