Skip to content

Conversation

@clmould
Copy link
Collaborator

@clmould clmould commented Jan 8, 2026

Closes #3979

Description

Checklist

I confirm that I have completed the following checks:

  • My changes follow the PROCESS style guide
  • I have justified any large differences in the regression tests caused by this pull request in the comments.
  • I have added new tests where appropriate for the changes I have made.
  • If I have had to change any existing unit or integration tests, I have justified this change in the pull request comments.
  • If I have made documentation changes, I have checked they render correctly.
  • I have added documentation for my change, if appropriate.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jan 8, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 46.30%. Comparing base (8a4d67c) to head (e8efeda).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
process/build.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4037   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   46.30%   46.30%           
=======================================
  Files         123      123           
  Lines       28961    28961           
=======================================
  Hits        13411    13411           
  Misses      15550    15550           

☔ 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.

@clmould clmould marked this pull request as ready for review January 8, 2026 15:26
@clmould clmould requested a review from chris-ashe January 8, 2026 15:26
process/build.py Outdated
)
radius_beam_tangency_max = 0.0e0

current_drive_variables.radius_beam_tangency = radius_beam_tangency
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are these variables not being assigned at the function output where it is called?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just moved it to where the fn is called

@clmould clmould force-pushed the 3979-nbi-radius_beam_tangency-and-radius_beam_tangency_max-have-initial-values00 branch from edad117 to e8efeda Compare January 9, 2026 14:10
@clmould clmould requested a review from chris-ashe January 9, 2026 15:07
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.

NBI radius_beam_tangency and radius_beam_tangency_max have initial values(0.0)

4 participants