-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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.
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
Support of light-curve package #201
Conversation
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #201 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 92.20% 92.45% +0.24%
==========================================
Files 21 22 +1
Lines 1091 1126 +35
==========================================
+ Hits 1006 1041 +35
Misses 85 85
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
3814574
to
150f64c
Compare
150f64c
to
797e8a6
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good! I think the general implementation is solid, don't really have any critiques or suggestions, I did have one comment on the test suite, which I'd like to see fixed before approval. Generally, I'd also recommend adding something to the documentation on this, but were you thinking that TAPE eclipsing binary showcase would serve as a demo for using this analysis function? If that's the case I'm happy to let this move through without a tutorial for now.
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ dependencies = [ | |||
'coverage', | |||
"deprecated", | |||
"ipykernel", # Support for Jupyter notebooks | |||
"light-curve>=0.7.3,<0.8.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Out of curiosity, what's the pin to <0.8.0 motivated by, is this something that we would need to change to enable more recent versions of light-curve?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm trying to follow semantic versioning conventions, so potentially I can brake backward compatibility in the 0.(x+1).0 version. Practically I don't brake it in a terrible or unsound way, but I still would like the version to be restricted.
rows = {column: np.concatenate([object1[column], object2[column]]) for column in object1} | ||
|
||
cmap = ColumnMapper(id_col="id", time_col="time", flux_col="flux", err_col="err", band_col="band") | ||
ens = Ensemble().from_source_dict(rows, cmap) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the test suite, try to make sure that any spun up ensemble objects use the dask_client defined in conftest.py, this avoids multiple clients being spun up during the test suite run
Thanks @dougbrn! I definitely should expand docstring and add a (small) tutorial |
b37d5de
to
25698c6
Compare
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just added a fix for the strange coalesce fail, reviewed the updated PR and this all looks good!
No description provided.