Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Should we revert #332? #337

Closed
charleskawczynski opened this issue Oct 2, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Should we revert #332? #337

charleskawczynski opened this issue Oct 2, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
help wanted 👋 Extra attention is needed question ❓ Further information is requested

Comments

@charleskawczynski
Copy link
Member

I just realized that #332 actually results in bad HVar in DYCOMS (and likely other cases). It merged without requiring to update the mse tables because, I believe, we don't test certain second order moments. If this is important to retain then I'm fine with reverting it, but I'm also wondering if we should be testing these second order moments in simulations if it is important.

cc @yairchn, @ilopezgp, @trontrytel
@charleskawczynski charleskawczynski added help wanted 👋 Extra attention is needed question ❓ Further information is requested labels Oct 2, 2021
@ilopezgp
Copy link
Contributor

ilopezgp commented Oct 2, 2021

Yikes! Yes, let's revert this. We should add tests for Hvar and Qtvar, those are important fields.

@charleskawczynski charleskawczynski mentioned this issue Oct 2, 2021
Merged
@charleskawczynski
Copy link
Member Author

Closed by #338

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
help wanted 👋 Extra attention is needed question ❓ Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@charleskawczynski @ilopezgp