search

JuliaMath / InverseLaplace.jl

Inverse Laplace transform
Other
32 stars 8 forks source link

Adding internals for array functions #8

Open elisno opened 5 years ago

elisno commented 5 years ago

My previous pull request broke existing functionality, so I decided to restart my work and add internal functions for arrays.

If the function is an N-dimensional array, its Laguerre-coefficients are stored in an (N+1)-dimensional array. The FFT is performed along the first dimension of that coefficient array when calculating the Laguerre-series.

In the test file specific to array-valued functions (test/arrayweeks_test.jl), calls to the internal functions seem to require two attempts (the first one usually outputs arrays of zeros). I haven't bothered to work on that, but I'll create a separate issue for that soon.

codecov-io commented 5 years ago

Codecov Report

Merging #8 into master will decrease coverage by 24.32%. The diff coverage is 96.55%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master       #8       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage     100%   75.67%   -24.33%     
===========================================
  Files           5        5               
  Lines         115      185       +70     
===========================================
+ Hits          115      140       +25     
- Misses          0       45       +45
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/weeks.jl 71.17% <96.55%> (-28.83%) :arrow_down:
src/InverseLaplace.jl 33.33% <0%> (-66.67%) :arrow_down:
src/pairtest.jl 75% <0%> (-25%) :arrow_down:
src/fixed_talbot.jl 95.83% <0%> (-4.17%) :arrow_down:

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 6262bf8...5b04403. Read the comment docs.

jlapeyre commented 5 years ago

Thanks! I will look at the changes. The test coverage went down even thought you added tests. Any idea why ?

elisno commented 5 years ago

Not really. Does this have something to do with the missing base report? Could this have something to do with the style of the test file (let blocks)?

jlapeyre commented 5 years ago

Yeah, maybe the missing base report.

elisno commented 5 years ago

Others seem to have similar issues with coverage. A fix seems to be on the way.

codecov-commenter commented 4 years ago

Codecov Report

Merging #8 into master will decrease coverage by 24.32%. The diff coverage is 96.55%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##            master       #8       +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage   100.00%   75.67%   -24.33%     
============================================
  Files            5        5               
  Lines          115      185       +70     
============================================
+ Hits           115      140       +25     
- Misses           0       45       +45
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/weeks.jl 71.17% <96.55%> (-28.83%) :arrow_down:
src/InverseLaplace.jl 33.33% <0.00%> (-66.67%) :arrow_down:
src/pairtest.jl 75.00% <0.00%> (-25.00%) :arrow_down:
src/fixed_talbot.jl 95.83% <0.00%> (-4.17%) :arrow_down:

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 0f590a8...db1eb6b. Read the comment docs.