-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 306
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
Add test for when lorentzfactor
and multiple particles are provided to gyroradius
#2539
Add test for when lorentzfactor
and multiple particles are provided to gyroradius
#2539
Conversation
gyroradius
when lorentzfactor
is provided with multiple particleslorentzfactor
and multiple particles are provided to gyroradius
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2539 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 96.93% 97.34% +0.41%
==========================================
Files 104 104
Lines 9163 9347 +184
==========================================
+ Hits 8882 9099 +217
+ Misses 281 248 -33 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Could I ask what the following means? |
Absolutely, that is a great question! The |
This PR might be partially superseded by #2542, but we'll probably still want to add the test case to make sure. |
…orentzfactor-multiple-particles
lorentzfactor
and multiple particles are provided to gyroradius
lorentzfactor
and multiple particles are provided to gyroradius
This PR fixes a bug where aValueError
is raised when providing the Lorentz factor togyroradius
, along with more than one particle.This PR adds a test for a bugfix, which was actually done in #2542. I changed the changelog entry to #2542 accordingly.
This bug probably remained hidden because we haven't added enough tests of formulary functions with
ParticleList
objects after decorating them with@particle_input
. It probably arose in part becausegyroradius
has significantly higher cognitive complexity than I'd like (see also #2371).Closes #2536. Many thanks to @jwreep for finding and reporting this bug!