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

LazyKet for QuantumCumulants.jl #69

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Feb 28, 2024
Merged

LazyKet for QuantumCumulants.jl #69

merged 8 commits into from
Feb 28, 2024

Conversation

ChristophHotter
Copy link
Member

Definition of LazyKets for the numeric conversion of initial product states in QuantumCumulants.jl.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 21, 2022

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 17 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93.00%. Comparing base (41705b2) to head (70e118d).

Files Patch % Lines
src/states_lazyket.jl 80.00% 17 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #69      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.34%   93.00%   -0.34%     
==========================================
  Files          24       25       +1     
  Lines        3019     3104      +85     
==========================================
+ Hits         2818     2887      +69     
- Misses        201      217      +16     

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

@ChristophHotter ChristophHotter changed the title Lazy ket qc LazyKet for QuantumCumulants.jl Oct 21, 2022
@david-pl
Copy link
Member

@Krastanov do you have an idea what the JET CI failures are about here?

@Krastanov
Copy link
Collaborator

Not sure, they all seem to detect a variety of issues, and it will take some effort to figure out which ones are false positives. It seems most of these also get triggered on master, so presumably with some previous merge we inadvertently added them. It is also possible that with Julia 1.10 now out we simply have more issues being detectable thanks to improvements in static analysis.

I would suggest just bumping the bound of "known issues" in the test file. The fact it is not zero will still be caught by @test_broken.

@david-pl
Copy link
Member

@Krastanov okay, thanks for the quick response 👍

@david-pl david-pl merged commit bb71f52 into master Feb 28, 2024
17 of 19 checks passed
@david-pl david-pl deleted the LazyKet-QC branch February 28, 2024 18:19
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