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

Unittest of dopamine synapse model #820

Open
suku248 opened this issue Sep 6, 2017 · 9 comments · May be fixed by #2168
Open

Unittest of dopamine synapse model #820

suku248 opened this issue Sep 6, 2017 · 9 comments · May be fixed by #2168
Assignees
Labels
I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) S: Normal Handle this with default priority stale Automatic marker for inactivity, please have another look here T: Maintenance Work to keep up the quality of the code and documentation.
Projects

Comments

@suku248
Copy link
Contributor

suku248 commented Sep 6, 2017

There are only manual tests of stdp_dopa_connection and they are outdated and will be removed with #774. A unittest of this synapse model is required.

@terhorstd terhorstd assigned suku248 and unassigned suku248 Sep 18, 2017
@terhorstd terhorstd added ZC: Infrastructure DO NOT USE THIS LABEL I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) ZP: Pending DO NOT USE THIS LABEL S: Normal Handle this with default priority T: Maintenance Work to keep up the quality of the code and documentation. labels Sep 18, 2017
@terhorstd terhorstd added this to To do in Automated testing via automation Sep 30, 2018
@terhorstd
Copy link
Contributor

@abigailm is there progress on this one?

@heplesser heplesser assigned clinssen and unassigned abigailm Apr 9, 2019
@heplesser
Copy link
Contributor

Model should be re-created using NESTML, including tests.

@jougs jougs assigned YounesBouhadjar and unassigned clinssen Aug 31, 2020
@jougs
Copy link
Contributor

jougs commented Aug 31, 2020

@clinssen: Whats your take on @heplesser's comment? Would this kind of third-factor plasticity be currently feasible in NESTML? Thanks!

@jougs jougs moved this from To do to In progress in Automated testing Sep 2, 2020
@heplesser
Copy link
Contributor

To expand a little on my comment from 1.5 years ago: If this model including tests can be built with NESTML in the near future, that would be a way to go. If not, we need to write tests for the model as is.

@clinssen
Copy link
Contributor

Me and @YounesBouhadjar will write a unit test that:

  • generates random spike times: pre, post and dopa (but will also test some edge-case predefined times, such as pre and post spikes occurring at the exact same time)
  • Runs a NEST simulation with three nodes and a volume transmitter with these spike times, obtain weight recording;
  • Runs a Python sim with these spike times
    • precise integration to the next spike (whichever of the three)
    • update values w, c, n using exponential solution of the ODE
    • update values c or n depending on arriving spike
  • Compares Python and NEST-obtained timeseries of w

@jougs
Copy link
Contributor

jougs commented Jan 18, 2021

@clinssen, @YounesBouhadjar: are there any news on this?

@clinssen
Copy link
Contributor

This was pre-empted by some other projects and queries, such as #1840, a NESTML active dendrite tutorial review, and the triplet synapse. As the latter is now working and third-factor plasticity rules are next on the NESTML agenda, we expect to pick this up again within the next few weeks!

@jougs
Copy link
Contributor

jougs commented Jan 19, 2021

Thanks for the update and no worries. I was just going through the stale issues in the automated testing project.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 3, 2021

Issue automatically marked stale!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Automatic marker for inactivity, please have another look here label Sep 3, 2021
@YounesBouhadjar YounesBouhadjar linked a pull request Sep 19, 2021 that will close this issue
7 tasks
@terhorstd terhorstd removed this from In progress in Automated testing Nov 6, 2023
@terhorstd terhorstd added this to To do in Models via automation Nov 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) S: Normal Handle this with default priority stale Automatic marker for inactivity, please have another look here T: Maintenance Work to keep up the quality of the code and documentation.
Projects
Models
  
To do
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

7 participants