-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 83
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
feat: Promote validate
kwarg to top-level functions in pyhf.simplemodels
#1858
feat: Promote validate
kwarg to top-level functions in pyhf.simplemodels
#1858
Conversation
Since master allows for custom specs - why not use a custom "catch-all" spec like |
Codecov ReportBase: 98.24% // Head: 98.24% // No change to project coverage 👍
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1858 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 98.24% 98.24%
=======================================
Files 68 68
Lines 4378 4378
Branches 726 726
=======================================
Hits 4301 4301
Misses 45 45
Partials 32 32
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
validate
kwarg up to the top-level functions in pyhf.simplemodels
validate
kwarg to top-level functions in pyhf.simplemodels
83f2a99
to
98d788a
Compare
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.
LGTM. 👍 Thanks for the PR and for your contributions @phinate (also thanks for your patience as this one got put off for some time)!
When doing experiments for differentiable models (#882), it's sometimes been easier to just skip validation with
simplemodels
, which I've been writing out specs for. This just reduces a bit of code overhead for me when I do that ;)Made sure to highlight in the docstring that this should probably never be touched if one doesn't know why.
This is also partially because #1665 isn't fully done yet, which would probably make this redundant in some ways.
Checklist Before Requesting Reviewer
Before Merging
For the PR Assignees: