-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
Removing precision sweep #270
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #270 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 44.02% 44.17% +0.14%
==========================================
Files 28 28
Lines 1774 1768 -6
==========================================
Hits 781 781
+ Misses 993 987 -6
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
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.
Thank you for implementing this. As I wrote in #268 I agree with this change but I am not sure if this precision sweep has some use for others.
width: int, | ||
step: int, |
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.
That is fine with me, but maybe something like
width: int, | |
step: int, | |
frequency_width: int, | |
frequency_step: int, |
would be clearer, so that we know what we sweep?
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.
Or maybe freq_width
so that it is in agreement with resonator_punchout etc.
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 agree. I think that freq_width
is fine.
Closes #268.
Checklist: