Conversation
|
This is what the badges look like now: I still need to make some changes mentioned in #308 before this PR is reviewed |
|
https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01196 @jchodera is this still the best reference for espaloma? |
|
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #309 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 68.03% 68.03%
=======================================
Files 5 5
Lines 879 879
=======================================
Hits 598 598
Misses 281 281 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
mattwthompson
left a comment
mattwthompson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The diff looks good to me; I checked that badges render and have links that go places. A couple of minor suggestions that came to mind as well
README.md
Outdated
| @@ -331,6 +333,9 @@ See the corresponding directories for information on how to use the provided con | |||
|
|
|||
| # Changelog | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking at the history, the release notes on GitHub are pretty consistently good: https://github.com/openmm/openmmforcefields/releases
Might be worth adding a link to the header of this section?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good, I do that for the next change log entry but it makes sense to highlight it here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I figure the high-level link gets most of the value of adding per-release links like you did, but with less work
Co-authored-by: Matt Thompson <[email protected]>
|
I asked on our espaloma slack for the best citation to use, once I get that I will update this PR and merge it in, thanks for the review @mattwthompson |
|
Out of scope here, but if you ever wanted to make an attempt to make big Markdown files more consistent, here's a hook I've been using to some success: |
4 participants
No description provided.