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

add cdbg data product #1355

Merged
merged 25 commits into from
Dec 31, 2024
Merged

add cdbg data product #1355

merged 25 commits into from
Dec 31, 2024

Conversation

damonmcc
Copy link
Member

related to #1348

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 31, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 70.36%. Comparing base (13366ee) to head (5514820).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1355      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.07%   70.36%   +0.29%     
==========================================
  Files         115      114       -1     
  Lines        6145     5966     -179     
  Branches      706      693      -13     
==========================================
- Hits         4306     4198     -108     
+ Misses       1692     1622      -70     
+ Partials      147      146       -1     

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

@fvankrieken
Copy link
Contributor

Just noting that some block groups have 0 population - for these, should percentages be 0 (as reported in the source data) or null?

@damonmcc damonmcc marked this pull request as ready for review December 31, 2024 20:49
@fvankrieken fvankrieken merged commit 2bac1f3 into main Dec 31, 2024
22 checks passed
@damonmcc
Copy link
Member Author

damonmcc commented Dec 31, 2024

@fvankrieken

Just noting that some block groups have 0 population - for these, should percentages be 0 (as reported in the source data) or null?

when I hit "divide by 0" issues, I went with 0 as the result for now since I didn't wanna have to handle nulls yet

this made the final eligibility queries simpler and allows a not_null test in product models (started with those just as sanity checks)

but I could see why we might wanna use nulls to be less misleading

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants