NF Add the parameter fa_operator in auto_response function

[GuillaumeTh]

Add a new parameter (fa_operator) in auto_response to give an operator for the comparison with the FA threshold.

@jchoude, @arokem, @MrBago Can you review ? This PR will be useful when the MSMT PR will be merged.

[arokem]

Looks useful. I'd prefer to have the operator be a proper callable (defined as a function), rather than a lambda defined in the function signature (that looks a bit weird to me). I'd also want to see a test that defines this callable as something different, to get a sense for how this will be used.

[MrBago]

why? I believe lambdas and functions are the same in python (expect lambdas don't get a function name).

[GuillaumeTh]

So, I don't know if my last commit is the right thing or not

[arokem]

I think that the code is fine (I think it's easier to understand this way). The documentation can be changed to say:

fa_operator : callable
    A callable that defines an operation that compares FA with the fa_thr. The operator 
    should have two positional arguments (e.g., `fa_operator(FA, fa_thr)`) and it should
    return a bool array.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 85.429% when pulling 8e12775 on GuillaumeTh:NF_auto_response into 0976d9e on nipy:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 85.429% when pulling 8e12775 on GuillaumeTh:NF_auto_response into 0976d9e on nipy:master.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #1288 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1288      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   87.11%   87.12%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         228      228              
  Lines       28764    28791      +27     
  Branches     3090     3093       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits        25057    25084      +27     
  Misses       3003     3003              
  Partials      704      704

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
dipy/reconst/csdeconv.py	88.67% <100%> (+0.14%)	⬆️
dipy/reconst/tests/test_csdeconv.py	99.42% <100%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
dipy/core/gradients.py	97.36% <0%> (+0.04%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0976d9e...1120d20. Read the comment docs.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 85.429% when pulling 8e12775 on GuillaumeTh:NF_auto_response into 0976d9e on nipy:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 85.429% when pulling 8e12775 on GuillaumeTh:NF_auto_response into 0976d9e on nipy:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 85.429% when pulling cef71ac on GuillaumeTh:NF_auto_response into 0976d9e on nipy:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 85.429% when pulling cef71ac on GuillaumeTh:NF_auto_response into 0976d9e on nipy:master.

[arokem]

This looks good to me. Unless I hear any objections, I will merge this after the holiday (July 4th).

[skoudoro]

I just request a small change, otherwise, it looks good to me too.

@arokem , I think it will be better to wait #1283 to be merged before merging this one.

[Garyfallidis]

I am not sure about the name. fa_operator? fa_callable is preferred.

[jchoude]

@skoudoro I work with @GuillaumeTh on this. I might be lost, but I don't see the change you requested. Mind pointing it?

Also, you say you prefer to merge #1283 before this one. Is it because both of them touch the test_csdeconv file? I don't think this might create any conflict.

No problem, I agree with you @jchoude and @arokem, you can merge this one, I will make this change later

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 85.43% when pulling 1120d20 on GuillaumeTh:NF_auto_response into 0976d9e on nipy:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 85.43% when pulling 1120d20 on GuillaumeTh:NF_auto_response into 0976d9e on nipy:master.