switch check in elp to use result instead of model#2389
Merged
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2389 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 82.82% 82.82%
=======================================
Files 131 131
Lines 7249 7249
=======================================
Hits 6004 6004
Misses 1245 1245 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
schlafly
approved these changes
Jul 14, 2026
schlafly
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch, thanks Brett.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While working on some related changes I noticed that the elp is accessing
model(the input model, which may be closed) instead ofresultwhen checking thesource_catalogsub-tree. This PR switches the access to useresult. I don't think by itself the code on main can cause an issue with current asdf and roman_datamodels but it seems more correct to useresult(and if we change how roman_datamodels handles a closed asdf file the code on main could be problematic).Regression tests:
https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/29345171004/job/87126875995
Tasks
24Q4_B15(use the latest build if not sure)no-changelog-entry-needed)changes/:echo "changed something" > changes/<PR#>.<changetype>.rst(see changelog readme for instructions)changes/<PR#>.breaking.rstnews fragmentdocs/pageokify_regteststo update the truth files