[FIX] fix error when n_iters is being set to None

[jdkent]

Closes #922 .

Changes proposed in this pull request:

Summary by Sourcery

Adjust FWECorrector Monte Carlo parameter handling to respect estimator defaults and add regression tests for this behavior.

Bug Fixes:

• Prevent FWECorrector with Monte Carlo method from overriding estimator default n_iters when it is not explicitly provided.

Tests:

• Add tests verifying FWECorrector(montecarlo) omits n_iters when not set and propagates explicit n_iters and n_cores values.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide

Adjusts FWECorrector’s Monte Carlo configuration to avoid overriding estimator defaults when n_iters is None, and adds tests to verify correct parameter propagation and defaults.

Class diagram for updated FWECorrector initialization

classDiagram
    class FWECorrector {
        +str method
        +dict parameters
        +__init__(method, n_iters, n_cores, kwargs)
    }

    FWECorrector : method default bonferroni
    FWECorrector : n_iters default None
    FWECorrector : n_cores default 1
    FWECorrector : parameters holds correction configuration
    FWECorrector : on init validate method
    FWECorrector : on init set parameters based on method and kwargs
    FWECorrector : for method montecarlo only set n_iters in parameters when n_iters is not None
    FWECorrector : for method montecarlo always set n_cores in parameters

Loading

Flow diagram for Monte Carlo FWECorrector parameter handling

flowchart TD
    A[start FWECorrector __init__] --> B[check method value]
    B -->|method not supported| C[raise ValueError]
    B -->|method equals montecarlo| D[handle montecarlo parameters]
    B -->|method not montecarlo| G[skip montecarlo config]

    D --> E{is n_iters not None?}
    E -->|yes| F[set kwargs n_iters to provided n_iters]
    E -->|no| H[do not set kwargs n_iters, keep estimator default]

    F --> I[set kwargs n_cores to provided n_cores]
    H --> I[set kwargs n_cores to provided n_cores]

    I --> J[store method in instance attribute]
    G --> J
    J --> K[store kwargs in parameters attribute]
    K --> L[end FWECorrector __init__]

Loading

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Refine FWECorrector Monte Carlo parameter handling to avoid passing None for n_iters while still forwarding n_cores.	Update FWECorrector init to only include n_iters in kwargs when it is explicitly provided (non-None). Ensure n_cores is always propagated through kwargs for Monte Carlo correction.	nimare/correct.py
Add unit tests validating FWECorrector Monte Carlo behavior for default and custom parameters.	Add test ensuring that when FWECorrector(montecarlo) is called without n_iters, the parameters dict does not contain n_iters but does contain the default n_cores. Add test ensuring that explicit n_iters and n_cores values are correctly stored in FWECorrector parameters.	nimare/tests/test_correct.py

Assessment against linked issues

Issue	Objective	Addressed	Explanation
#922	Fix the TypeError raised when running FWECorrector(method='montecarlo') with MKDAChi2 (via correct_fwe_montecarlo) using default parameters, so that FWE('montecarlo') correction completes successfully.	✅
#922	Ensure FWECorrector with method='montecarlo' respects estimator-specific defaults for n_iters when n_iters is not provided, while still propagating explicitly provided n_iters and n_cores values.	✅

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey there - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:

• Consider applying the same None-aware logic to n_cores as you did for n_iters (only setting it in kwargs when not None) so that estimators can fall back to their own n_cores defaults when desired.

Prompt for AI Agents

Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- Consider applying the same `None`-aware logic to `n_cores` as you did for `n_iters` (only setting it in `kwargs` when not `None`) so that estimators can fall back to their own `n_cores` defaults when desired.

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.26%. Comparing base (6b3e899) to head (1c3e8b1).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #959   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.25%   88.26%           
=======================================
  Files          49       49           
  Lines        6924     6926    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits         6111     6113    +2     
  Misses        813      813           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.