OpenSourceEconomics / lcm

Solution and simulation of life cycle models in Python with GPU acceleration.
Apache License 2.0
16 stars 1 forks source link

Update infrastructure #4

Closed timmens closed 1 year ago

timmens commented 1 year ago

What problem do you want to solve?

Match the code base infrastructure with that of estimagic.

Changes

Todo

review-notebook-app[bot] commented 1 year ago

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.


Powered by ReviewNB

codecov[bot] commented 1 year ago

Codecov Report

Merging #4 (c66fdc6) into main (f5d91c6) will decrease coverage by 0.17%. The diff coverage is 93.25%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main       #4      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.46%   98.29%   -0.17%     
==========================================
  Files          25       25              
  Lines        1110     1058      -52     
==========================================
- Hits         1093     1040      -53     
- Misses         17       18       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
unit ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/lcm/create_params.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lcm/distributions.py 77.77% <0.00%> (ø)
src/lcm/entry_point.py 97.05% <0.00%> (ø)
tests/test_interpolation.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lcm/example_models.py 84.00% <50.00%> (+0.66%) :arrow_up:
src/lcm/discrete_emax.py 97.87% <80.00%> (-0.21%) :arrow_down:
src/lcm/process_model.py 97.84% <87.50%> (-1.11%) :arrow_down:
src/lcm/dispatchers.py 96.77% <100.00%> (-0.15%) :arrow_down:
src/lcm/function_evaluator.py 96.05% <100.00%> (-0.06%) :arrow_down:
src/lcm/grids.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 13 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

timmens commented 1 year ago

Thank you @ChristianZimpelmann

  • Don't you think the documentation could still be of use? It seems to be quite general.. but haven't had a closer look at it.

Janos recommended deleting it. The docs were comprised mostly of design notes, which are rather developer documentation. I think this developer documentation is very important, but I want to use a different format ---something not on GitHub. Some of Janos' notes would be integrated into this new format.

  • I cannot say much about some parts of the setup (e.g. tox vs pytest, ruff blacklisting)

Maybe @hmgaudecker can comment on this.

hmgaudecker commented 1 year ago

Happy to do so, but unlikely to happen before our meeting.

ChristianZimpelmann commented 1 year ago

The docs were comprised mostly of design notes, which are rather developer documentation. I think this developer documentation is very important, but I want to use a different format ---something not on GitHub. Some of Janos' notes would be integrated into this new format.

That makes sense! Just wanted to make sure that the design notes are not lost.

timmens commented 1 year ago

Leaving docformatter at v1.5.1 instead of v.1.6.0 because of incompatibilities with black.

hmgaudecker commented 1 year ago

Leaving docformatter at v1.5.1 instead of v.1.6.0 because of incompatibilities with black.

Let's just delete it, ruff should take care of it eventually.

hmgaudecker commented 1 year ago

(I actually did not mean to approve, else the message would not have made sense, but I might as well have. So just merge as you see fit)

Thanks!