-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
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
Update mesa-geo to sync with mesa >=2.3.0 #211
Conversation
tpike3
commented
Jul 2, 2024
•
edited
Loading
edited
- update to geoagent, tile_layers,raster_layers pass in mesa.Model so compatible with AgentSets
- update visualization to use solara with Jupyter_viz and leaflet_viz
- remove js visualization
- update tests
-update to geoagen, tile_layers,raster_layers pass in mesa.Model so compatable with AgentSets -update visualization to use solara with Jupyter_viz and leaflet_viz -remove js visualization -update tests
- update to geoagent, tile_layers,raster_layers pass in mesa.Model so compatible with AgentSets - update visualization to use solara with Jupyter_viz and leaflet_viz - remove js visualization - update tests
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #211 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 78.21% 71.22% -6.99%
==========================================
Files 10 9 -1
Lines 693 768 +75
Branches 151 175 +24
==========================================
+ Hits 542 547 +5
- Misses 127 192 +65
- Partials 24 29 +5 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Since the code is functional anyway, rather than having this in PR limbo due to the blocker being lots of boilerplate code, I'd rather approve this and then refactor later. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
I am okay with this being merged after conflicts are resolved. |
Apologies, I need to close this an reopen to fix the history conflicts so it can be merged. |
Thanks for this effort! On a bit wider note, I am (still) a proponent of moving towards a monorepo. See: |