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.

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

Doc: Clear petab notebook output #1271

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 9, 2024
Merged

Conversation

dweindl
Copy link
Member

@dweindl dweindl commented Jan 8, 2024

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jan 8, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (9e27528) 84.66% compared to head (0fb1a19) 84.68%.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1271      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    84.66%   84.68%   +0.02%     
===========================================
  Files          148      148              
  Lines        12122    12122              
===========================================
+ Hits         10263    10266       +3     
+ Misses        1859     1856       -3     

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

dweindl added a commit to dweindl/pyPESTO that referenced this pull request Jan 8, 2024
tqdm progress bars are used in a couple of places. They don't play so well in
non-interactive jobs, testing, ... . They also cause trouble with nbspinx
(ICB-DCM#1246, ICB-DCM#1271).
Progress bars can be disabled for specific tasks, but not globally (or at
least not very conveniently).
Since recently, tqdm can be controlled via environment variables (e.g.,
disabling all progress bars or changing update frequency). However,
this works by changing the argument defaults, so it only works if we don't
pass explicit `disable=...`. Therefore, this PR introduces some wrapper that
checks whether the user explicitly enabled/disabled progress bars. If not,
we go with the tqdm default, which means showing all progress bars unless
globally disabled. An additional `enabled` argument is added for convenience.
@dweindl dweindl mentioned this pull request Jan 8, 2024
@dweindl dweindl self-assigned this Jan 8, 2024
@dweindl dweindl requested a review from Doresic January 9, 2024 07:05
dweindl added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 9, 2024
tqdm progress bars are used in a couple of places. They don't play so well in
non-interactive jobs, testing, ... . They also cause trouble with nbspinx
(#1246, #1271).
Progress bars can be disabled for specific tasks, but not globally (or at
least not very conveniently).
Since recently, tqdm can be controlled via environment variables (e.g.,
disabling all progress bars or changing update frequency). However,
this works by changing the argument defaults, so it only works if we don't
pass explicit `disable=...`. Therefore, this PR introduces some wrapper that
checks whether the user explicitly enabled/disabled progress bars. If not,
we go with the tqdm default, which means showing all progress bars unless
globally disabled. An additional `enabled` argument is added for convenience.

---------

Co-authored-by: Dilan Pathirana <59329744+dilpath@users.noreply.github.com>
@dweindl dweindl marked this pull request as ready for review January 9, 2024 08:51
Copy link
Contributor

@Doresic Doresic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!

@dweindl dweindl requested a review from a team as a code owner January 9, 2024 15:46
dweindl and others added 3 commits January 9, 2024 21:10
A subset of ICB-DCM#1246.

Co-authored-by: Doresic <domagoj.doresic@gmail.com>
@dweindl dweindl merged commit 8d6f5a0 into ICB-DCM:develop Jan 9, 2024
18 checks passed
@dweindl dweindl deleted the doc_nb_petab branch January 9, 2024 22:27
This was referenced Jan 30, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants