Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.96907% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.61%. Comparing base (f6188e8) to head (d3166c6).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #337      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.96%   90.61%   -0.36%     
==========================================
  Files          41       41              
  Lines        3399     3432      +33     
==========================================
+ Hits         3092     3110      +18     
- Misses        307      322      +15     

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

@wtbarnes, how were the .asdf files with the IDL data generated? They have ioneq keys in their data, so fully purging the repository of references to ioneq will require updating them. Alternatively, we can just leave those keys in the sections with IDL comparisons, which looks like it is only user-facing in the Docs examples.

@wtbarnes, how were the .asdf files with the IDL data generated? They have ioneq keys in their data, so fully purging the repository of references to ioneq will require updating them. Alternatively, we can just leave those keys in the sections with IDL comparisons, which looks like it is only user-facing in the Docs examples.

The .asdf files containing the IDL results are automatically generated by the tests if the files do not exist already:

That being said, I do not think it is necessary to remove the usage of "ioneq" when it is in the context of the IDL results as that is what the quantity is called in the IDL code. I would actually prefer to preserve that nomenclature in that context.

As such, any reference to "ioneq" in the tests when referring to the IDL results can be left as is. All of the test files can also remain unchanged, both in name and their contents.