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 impulse response functions to all rfunc #472
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
useful for function names with underscore _ such as polder_function
Edelman still not finished
fix pi problem implement kraijenhoff vd leur impulse response (does not fully work yet)
formatting related
based on bruggeman equation 133.15
This is how it should have been implemented I think.
…into 453-impulse-rfunc
Method had nothing to do with parameters, I think new name is better. Internal method, so changing can be done without issues.
…into 453-impulse-rfunc
Sum now looks nice latexified. @martinvonk needs to remove some of the Kraijenhoff derivation
…into 453-impulse-rfunc
remove old impulse_kraijenhoff add nterms as keyword argument to kraijenhoff impulse
update documentation on kraijenhoff
martinvonk
force-pushed
the
453-impulse-rfunc
branch
from
January 19, 2023 10:41
133b3ea
to
047738d
Compare
remove nterms as keyword argument fix impulse fourparam since A is not used but called
call plt.show() such that readthedocs shows figures. figures are not shown in readthedocs otherwise because black formatting does not accept a semicolumn.
martinvonk
force-pushed
the
453-impulse-rfunc
branch
from
January 19, 2023 12:02
ef922dc
to
17af48a
Compare
…into 453-impulse-rfunc
i tried to be clever with fourparam but failed :)
and make functions call more explicit
@dbrakenhoff this PR is ready for review. |
remove unnecessary latexify identifier
dbrakenhoff
reviewed
Jan 19, 2023
dbrakenhoff
reviewed
Jan 19, 2023
dbrakenhoff
reviewed
Jan 19, 2023
dbrakenhoff
approved these changes
Jan 19, 2023
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.
See comments
-remove Decorator type since it is essentialy a function - fix weird indent in docstring - fix response_functions notebook
martinvonk
added
enhancement
Indicates improvement of existing features
documentation
Indicates a need for improvements or additions to documentation
labels
Feb 28, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation
Indicates a need for improvements or additions to documentation
enhancement
Indicates improvement of existing features
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Short Description
EDIT: ready for review.
Checklist before PR can be merged: