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

force pyne nomoab_openmc version #1623

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 7, 2021

Conversation

epassaro
Copy link
Member

@epassaro epassaro commented Jun 6, 2021

Description

Motivation and context

macOS pipelines are failing despite pyne has not been updated in more than a year. For some reason, the environment is solved with a different pyne compilation than the one used until the last week.

This is related to TEP013.

How has this been tested?

  • Testing pipeline.
  • Other.

Examples

Type of change

  • Bug fix.
  • New feature.
  • Breaking change.
  • None of the above.

Checklist

  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
    • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
    • (optional) I have built the documentation on my fork following the instructions.
  • I have assigned and requested two reviewers for this pull request.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 6, 2021

Before a PR is accepted, it must meet the following criteria:

  • Is the necessary information provided?
    • Does the PR have a complete description? Does it explain what the PR is attempting to do/fix, does it explain how it does this?
    • Is there an explanation of why this PR is needed?
    • Please use the TARDIS PR template
  • Is this a duplicate PR?
    • If a new PR is clearly a duplicate, ask how this PR is different from the original PR?
    • If this PR is about to be merged, close the original PR with a link to this new PR that solved the issue.
  • Does it pass existing tests and are new tests provided if required?
    • The test coverage should not decrease, and for new features should be at or very close to 100%.
  • Is the code properly documented?
    • If this modifies existing code, then the docs should be updated. If this adds a new feature, additional documentation should be created.
    • Sphinx and docstrings in the code (in numpydoc format)
  • Does this conform to PEP 8 and the TARDIS style guidelines?
  • Does the PR fix the problem it describes?
    • Make sure it doesn’t e.g. just fix the problem for a specific case
    • Is this the best way of fixing the problem?
  • Is the code tidy?
    • No unnecessary print lines or code comments

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 6, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #1623 (df86e1a) into master (267906d) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head df86e1a differs from pull request most recent head f03c8c7. Consider uploading reports for the commit f03c8c7 to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1623   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.20%   67.20%           
=======================================
  Files          73       73           
  Lines        6150     6150           
=======================================
  Hits         4133     4133           
  Misses       2017     2017           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 267906d...f03c8c7. Read the comment docs.

@tardis-sn tardis-sn deleted a comment from github-actions bot Jun 7, 2021
@tardis-sn tardis-sn deleted a comment from github-actions bot Jun 7, 2021
@wkerzendorf wkerzendorf merged commit f71bc3e into tardis-sn:master Jun 7, 2021
atharva-2001 pushed a commit to atharva-2001/tardis that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2021
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.

3 participants