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
updates and fixes to template-generating code and failing unit tests and errors #559
Conversation
Updates in this PR (still WIP, unit tests still not totally fixed):
|
@sbailey can I bring the trapezoidal rebinning script in |
I'd prefer to not bring in a new desisim dependency on redrock, but if it really makes a substantial difference in pragmatic runtime, ok. If that dependency becomes problematic we can copy the code into desisim (or otherwise augment desispec.interpolation to have the faster simpler version from redrock; desispec.interpolation.resample_flux is slower because it does more with ivar weighting, masking, etc.). |
@weaverba137 would you be able to help me debug these failing tests? Everything passes on my laptop but I'm worried that I've messed up the test configuration somehow, e.g., |
Any thoughts on why the coverage tests fail and how I can fix this? Otherwise, this PR is ready for review (although I may have some additional small updates / bug fixes as I'm looking at the mock simulations in |
The test coverage has decreased dramatically! It's rare to see a PR that changes the coverage by that much. Did you add a lot of code that is not tested or did you disable tests of existing code? |
Another discrepancy: You're using desimodel/0.17.0 code but desimodel/0.12.0 data. I've gone ahead and updated the CI test so that desimodel data is used consistently. |
Thanks. I added many more unit tests and not a lot of new code, so I would have expected the coverage to increase a lot, not the other way around. |
OK, so we'll have to compare this branch to master. |
If you look at https://coveralls.io/builds/45574713, coverage of desisim/templates.py has decreased by ~ 11%. That's a lot, and it accounts for the bulk of the overall decrease. |
And |
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.
Still need to actually run tests on desisim/template.py. Other comments are relatively minor.
Coverage is back to pre-PR levels, even with a slight increase and all tests are passing, so merge when ready. |
[WIP]
In this mishmash PR I'm planning to address #507, #537, #549, and #558. I'll provide details of the changes when I'm done.