fixed test

[Attolight-NTappy]

Fixes the failing test in #185

[ericpre]

If I understand correctly, np.random.randint is still using the legacy random generator: https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/random/generated/numpy.random.randint.html. Would it make sense to use the new generator?
The legacy generator is not deprecated but it will most likely be at some point.

[Attolight-NTappy]

For what I understood the np.random.seed statement has no effect as the following add_gaussian_noise from hyperspy does not take it into account and applies its own seed using the generator object.

I updated the tests to remove this line

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (ca4d57d) 100.00% compared to head (0c6d1a9) 100.00%.

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #187   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           12        12           
  Lines          554       554           
=========================================
  Hits           554       554           

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ericpre]

Does remove_spikes have any added functionalities in comparison to Signal1D.spikes_removal_tool? If not, is it worth keeping it?

[Attolight-NTappy]

From what I see in the code, it mostly allows to choose whether it is done in place or not.

(I just discover now that the test is still flaky)

[jlaehne]

Does remove_spikes have any added functionalities in comparison to Signal1D.spikes_removal_tool? If not, is it worth keeping it?

Indeed, apart from the additional inplace option, which should be easy to contribute upstream, and the possibility to build a signal_mask from a luminescence_roi, it is only a wrapper function with different defaults (interactive=False).

@jordiferrero, you contributed this function, what was the original motivation behind it? If we are just changing defaults of an existing function, it does not really make sense to keep it up.