Skip to content

Conversation

@GiovanniCanali
Copy link
Collaborator

@GiovanniCanali GiovanniCanali commented Oct 20, 2025

Description

This PR fixes:

#548
#609
#616
#659
#661
#668
#675
#677

Checklist

  • Code follows the project’s Code Style Guidelines
  • Tests have been added or updated
  • Documentation has been updated if necessary
  • Pull request is linked to an open issue

avisquid and others added 11 commits October 3, 2025 20:37
Co-authored-by: GiovanniCanali <[email protected]>
Changed pull request trigger to pull_request_target and enabled coverage publishing.
* vectorize Cox - de Boor recursion

Co-authored-by: Filippo Olivo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: ajacoby9 <[email protected]>

* fix logic and extend tests

* add b-spline surface

---------

Co-authored-by: Filippo Olivo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: GiovanniCanali <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Filippo Olivo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: ajacoby9 <[email protected]>
@GiovanniCanali GiovanniCanali self-assigned this Oct 20, 2025
@GiovanniCanali GiovanniCanali marked this pull request as ready for review October 20, 2025 07:53
@GiovanniCanali GiovanniCanali requested review from a team, dario-coscia and ndem0 as code owners October 20, 2025 07:53
@GiovanniCanali GiovanniCanali changed the title Dev updates - Version 0.2.4 Dev updates Oct 20, 2025
@GiovanniCanali GiovanniCanali linked an issue Oct 20, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@GiovanniCanali GiovanniCanali linked an issue Oct 21, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@GiovanniCanali GiovanniCanali added the pr-to-review Label for PR that are ready to been reviewed label Oct 21, 2025
@dario-coscia dario-coscia added enhancement New feature or request tutorials Improvements or additions to tutorials labels Oct 21, 2025
@dario-coscia
Copy link
Collaborator

@GiovanniCanali ready to merge on my side

@dario-coscia
Copy link
Collaborator

@FilippoOlivo @ndem0 we need an extra review before merging

@FilippoOlivo
Copy link
Member

FilippoOlivo commented Oct 23, 2025

@dario-coscia @GiovanniCanali I am a bit concerned about introducing codacy "errors". Moreover, I would remove support for python 3.9 in this PR

@GiovanniCanali
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@dario-coscia @GiovanniCanali I am a bit concerned about introducing codacy "errors". Moreover, I would remove support for python 3.9 in this PR

I agree on dropping Python 3.9. Regarding the Codacy errors, I don’t see any real concern there. Also, manually disabling them wouldn’t really solve the issue — it would just hide it.

@dario-coscia
Copy link
Collaborator

@FilippoOlivo Maybe we can start a discussion on this and decide what is the best strategy. Manually disabling is a bit hacky

@FilippoOlivo
Copy link
Member

@dario-coscia @GiovanniCanali I am a bit concerned about introducing codacy "errors". Moreover, I would remove support for python 3.9 in this PR

I agree on dropping Python 3.9. Regarding the Codacy errors, I don’t see any real concern there. Also, manually disabling them wouldn’t really solve the issue — it would just hide it.

II think we could take another look at the Codacy rules and maybe tweak them a bit. We can talk about it sometime soon. For the case of #602, I think it’s fine to disable the Codacy warning since there’s not really a smart way to avoid it.

@GiovanniCanali GiovanniCanali linked an issue Oct 23, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@dario-coscia
Copy link
Collaborator

@dario-coscia @GiovanniCanali I am a bit concerned about introducing codacy "errors". Moreover, I would remove support for python 3.9 in this PR

I agree on dropping Python 3.9. Regarding the Codacy errors, I don’t see any real concern there. Also, manually disabling them wouldn’t really solve the issue — it would just hide it.

II think we could take another look at the Codacy rules and maybe tweak them a bit. We can talk about it sometime soon. For the case of #602, I think it’s fine to disable the Codacy warning since there’s not really a smart way to avoid it.

We can also think of dropping Codacy and relying only on the coverage given by the linter. The best option in any case is to do an open discussion (feel free to open it) where we analyse the different proposals. For this dev update, I don't see the urge need to avoid a few Codacy errors; again, it is better to have a collective agreement rather than twisting the current rules

@dario-coscia dario-coscia mentioned this pull request Oct 23, 2025
4 tasks
Update version due to py3.9 dropping
@GiovanniCanali GiovanniCanali merged commit 6935e0d into master Oct 23, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request maintenance pr-to-review Label for PR that are ready to been reviewed tutorials Improvements or additions to tutorials

Projects

None yet

7 participants