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

Add IBMAWorkflow #817

Merged
merged 24 commits into from Sep 15, 2023
Merged

Add IBMAWorkflow #817

merged 24 commits into from Sep 15, 2023

Conversation

JulioAPeraza
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes None.

Changes proposed in this pull request:

  • Support IBMA estimators in the Workflow module.
  • Generate HTML report for IBMAWorkflow.

@JulioAPeraza JulioAPeraza added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 23, 2023
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 23, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: +0.24% 🎉

Comparison is base (0864fd2) 88.67% compared to head (6e6f24b) 88.91%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #817      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.67%   88.91%   +0.24%     
==========================================
  Files          47       48       +1     
  Lines        6020     6125     +105     
==========================================
+ Hits         5338     5446     +108     
+ Misses        682      679       -3     
Files Changed Coverage Δ
nimare/reports/base.py 96.47% <100.00%> (+1.55%) ⬆️
nimare/reports/figures.py 98.59% <100.00%> (+0.49%) ⬆️
nimare/workflows/__init__.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
nimare/workflows/base.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
nimare/workflows/cbma.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
nimare/workflows/ibma.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@JulioAPeraza JulioAPeraza marked this pull request as ready for review June 26, 2023 19:25
Copy link
Member

@jdkent jdkent left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, just one question in the example notebook

examples/02_meta-analyses/12_plot_ibma_workflow.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@JulioAPeraza
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The tests that are failing were addressed here #823 and here #824.

@JulioAPeraza
Copy link
Collaborator Author

It looks like an epsilon that small does not solve the issue. I think we would need a higher threshold so that the coverage maps are not 1 in all the voxels.

Copy link
Member

@jdkent jdkent left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me, would the workflow to try to handle transformations, and raise an error if there isn't the right data to do the transformations.

examples/02_meta-analyses/12_plot_ibma_workflow.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@jdkent jdkent left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Thanks for all your work on this!

@jdkent jdkent merged commit 63f0a7e into neurostuff:main Sep 15, 2023
19 checks passed
@JulioAPeraza JulioAPeraza deleted the add-ibmaworkflow branch September 15, 2023 14:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants