Minor fixups ensembles #568
Conversation
…bug which may yield to incorrect predictions if using of chunk size
| for rdata in chunk[RDATAS]: | ||
| amici_outputs.append({AMICI_STATUS: rdata[AMICI_STATUS], | ||
| AMICI_T: rdata[AMICI_T], | ||
| AMICI_X: rdata[AMICI_X], | ||
| AMICI_SX: rdata[AMICI_SX], | ||
| AMICI_Y: rdata[AMICI_Y], | ||
| AMICI_SY: rdata[AMICI_SY]}) | ||
| amici_outputs.append({ | ||
| output_field: deepcopy(rdata[output_field]) | ||
| for output_field in self.amici_output_fields | ||
| }) | ||
| del chunk |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is deepcopy used because chunk remained in memory (or I guess, because after del chunk, maybe the value in amici_outputs is also deleted without deepcopy)? If so, is both deepcopy and del necessary? Since chunk should get garbage collected I guess, if there are no references to it? Just curious, fine to leave as-is
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I actually intended t go without the deepcopy and the del, and it seemed to work fine. However, in my debugger I experienced that chunk was still present i nthe memory at a later call of the function and just got overwritten... That puzzled me extremely...
Might be, that this is really only due to the debugger. However, I wanted make really, really safe that chunk is dead, dead, DEAD! 🦇 No, not undead, dead. ⚰️ ... That's why deepcopy and del... 🤷♂️
Co-authored-by: Dilan Pathirana <59329744+dilpath@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dilan Pathirana <59329744+dilpath@users.noreply.github.com>
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #568 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 88.57% 88.56% -0.01%
===========================================
Files 79 79
Lines 5243 5257 +14
===========================================
+ Hits 4644 4656 +12
- Misses 599 601 +2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Making the predictor more flexible and fixing a bug in the parameter mapping...