Simplify er_blade

[eric-wieser]

This function did two things unnecessarily:

• Convert blade reps to base rep before calling mul. This is already handled within mul, so there's no need to do it again at the call site.
• Branch depending on the mode string - this branching is already handled by Mul

This function is called only by Ga.connection, which is not tested anywhere, so has no code coverage.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 68.74%. Comparing base (d4fe3db) to head (16de7db).
⚠️ Report is 513 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
galgebra/ga.py	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (0.00%) is below the target coverage (75.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #140      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.61%   68.74%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files           9        9              
  Lines        4684     4675       -9     
==========================================
  Hits         3214     3214              
+ Misses       1470     1461       -9     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[utensil]

The diff coverage is 0%. Why? Could it be not 0%?

[utensil]

er_blade is completely not used in any test cases. I suggest to hold changes to unused code until we have corresponding test cases to cover them or we figure out the usecase or even whether it's needed at all.

https://codecov.io/gh/pygae/galgebra/src/master/galgebra/ga.py#L1650

Codecov

Code coverage done right.

Hosted coverage report highly integrated with GitHub, Bitbucket and GitLab. Awesome pull request comments to enhance your QA.

[eric-wieser]

I suggest to hold changes to unused code until we have corresponding test cases

I'd perhaps rephrase that to witholding merging changes until we have coverage. Perhaps a tag for this type of pr would be useful.

Having said that, in this case the change takes a mysterious function to a trivial one, so might be worth merging anyway - if you follow the code path for mul, you see it converts to blade rep anyway.

[utensil]

witholding merging changes until we have coverage

ok.

might be worth merging anyway

Better not. Sticking to the standard, coverage should be a prerequisite.