Repository navigation
TST/BUG: address ISC004 violations (io.fits) - #20117
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.
|
This was referenced Jul 24, 2026
pllim
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2026
pllim
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2026
…117-on-v7.2.x Backport PR #20117 on branch v7.2.x (TST/BUG: address `ISC004` violations (`io.fits`))
pllim
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2026
pllim
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2026
…117-on-v8.0.x Backport PR #20117 on branch v8.0.x (TST/BUG: address `ISC004` violations (`io.fits`))
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
Original motivatio: #20113
I believe this one is an actual defect in the original test and that ruff correctly identified the issue with it.