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

Adds testing of multiplicative biases against ngmix #44

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Mar 29, 2022

Conversation

andrevitorelli
Copy link
Contributor

Passing this test is what we need to solve issue #36

Copy link
Member

@EiffL EiffL left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it looks good, left a few cocmments but coculddnt do a full review of the test. Mightt want to gtet anotherr set of eyes on it. Maybe @aguinot ?

@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ jobs:
galsim \
ngmix

python -m pip install tensorflow==2.5.0 tensorflow_addons==0.13.0 tensorflow_probability==0.13.0
python -m pip install tensorflow==2.5.0 tensorflow_addons==0.13.0 tensorflow_probability==0.13.0 numdifftools
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

do we need numdifftools here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's not used in this test, but in the other. I don't think there is a problem in being here.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we shouldnd't add dependencies that are not neeeded

autometacal/python/metacal.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
autometacal/python/metacal.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@andrevitorelli
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think it looks good, left a few cocmments but coculddnt do a full review of the test. Mightt want to gtet anotherr set of eyes on it. Maybe @aguinot ?

I don't know if we need to be that careful with PRs in code that is in this early stage, tbh. There is a lot here that will eventually change for a working output.

@andrevitorelli andrevitorelli requested a review from EiffL March 29, 2022 19:39
.github/workflows/main.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@EiffL EiffL left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM :-)

@EiffL EiffL merged commit 254c21f into main Mar 29, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants