Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 23.33333% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.46%. Comparing base (2a74fa4) to head (6789c94).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

❗ Current head 6789c94 differs from pull request most recent head 5f57e5f

Please upload reports for the commit 5f57e5f to get more accurate results.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #603      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    73.69%   73.46%   -0.24%     
===========================================
  Files           70       70              
  Lines        10304    10340      +36     
===========================================
+ Hits          7594     7596       +2     
- Misses        2710     2744      +34     

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

Nice one!

@Lucas-Prates can you mark the PR 475 in the "Development" section at the top right corner of your PR?
This ensures the issue will be automatically closed when this PR gets to the default branch (i.e. the master).

@Lucas-Prates your PR looks nice to me.

Just to attention points:

• The CHANGELOG was not updated with your PR
• There is no test too cover the new feature. Indeed, there are no such thing as a "test_aero_surfaces.py" file in the repo, which make everything harder.

The changelog needs to be updated before merging the PR, it is really simple so it is a must.
However, the tests are discussable... How good is your understand about unit/integration/e2e tests right now?
Would you prefer to merge this PR first and open up another PR with new tests OR to implement the tests here directly?

We can help you with theses tests, no rocket science, don't worry.

Thanks a lot for the review, @Gui-FernandesBR. With respect to the tests, I have extremely basic experience with it. However, I do not mind implementing the tests in this PR since it seems to be a good opportunity to learn.

Also, I do not know what a changelog is or how to adequately update it, so I will need guidance with that as well.

One minor issue: the documentation states that the power argument must be between $0$ and $1$. However, it could also be one of these extreme values. When power equals $1$, we have the same result as a 'conical' nose cone, and the code runs normally.

When power equals $0$, we currently raise a ValueError since the drawing breaks because the front end of the nose cone does not close ($0 ^ 0 = 1$ for Python). However, we could understand $0$ as the limit case where the nose cone becomes a cylinder.

Should we still raise a ValueError if the user passes $0$ as input for power or should we handle this input differently? For instance, we could set power to a value close to $0$, e.g. 1e-6, so its behavior is equivalent but without breaking the drawing.

Here are some drawings to understand.

power $= 0.01$

power $= 1e-6$

power $= 0$ (Would raise a ValueError)

Should we still raise a ValueError if the user passes 0 as input for power or should we handle this input differently? For instance, we could set power to a value close to 0 , e.g. 1e-6, so its behavior is equivalent but without breaking the drawing.

Passing 0 should raise an error since it does not make physical sense. Passing 1 should work normally