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

Merge Develop to Master, release v5.29.0 #194

Merged
merged 22 commits into from
Mar 13, 2024
Merged

Merge Develop to Master, release v5.29.0 #194

merged 22 commits into from
Mar 13, 2024

Conversation

Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 13, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 97.10145% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 80.09%. Comparing base (0003905) to head (a973d62).

Files Patch % Lines
lib/ontologies_linked_data/models/class.rb 92.30% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #194      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.99%   80.09%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files          64       65       +1     
  Lines        4958     5003      +45     
==========================================
+ Hits         3966     4007      +41     
- Misses        992      996       +4     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 80.09% <97.10%> (+0.10%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

if !reasoning
owlapi.disable_reasoner
end
owlapi = LinkedData::Parser::OWLAPICommand.new(

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

maybe there is a downgrade in the code here, why remove the usage of the helper owlapi_parser(logger: nil) and replaced with LinkedData::Parser::OWLAPICommand.new ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mdorf and @alexskr - I have the same question as Syphax here. Was this change intended?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@syphax-bouazzouni, I just merged the code from your earlier pull request. From my understanding, the owlapi_parser(logger: nil) method includes a call to unzip_submission(logger), which is already being run inside the process_submission method on line 1005. That call had to be done earlier because your updated generate_rdf method now requires the file_path to be passed as an argument. So calling owlapi_parser(logger: nil) inside generate_rdf would duplicate the unzipping process. Again, I simply merged your earlier pull request and fixed any code that it had missed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@syphax-bouazzouni, I think we can simply remove the file_path from the list of required arguments for generate_rdf and then make a call to the owlapi_parser(logger: nil) method inside generate_rdf instead of the direct call to LinkedData::Parser::OWLAPICommand.new. From what I can see this is the only place in the generate_rdf that needs the file_path.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes removing that argument, would be the right solution here, even in our local branch generate_rdf does not have the file_path argument, I don't know why it ended up in my PR.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll make that change on our end and re-test

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great, thanks, and sorry for the bother.

Copy link
Member Author

@alexskr alexskr Mar 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the refactor that @mdorf suggested in #194 (comment) be implemented after this release is complete

Corrects the previous commit that left out the Gemfile
@alexskr alexskr merged commit 501943c into master Mar 13, 2024
6 checks passed
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.

4 participants