Closed infotroph closed 3 months ago
Bonus points for adding a unit test!
This one was a poster child for test-driven development: I saw some funny behavior, wrote the test to decide whether it was a bug, and the answer was yes. I wish they were all this easy to test!
I think this was a flipped multiply/divide -- the now-replaced
0:(23 * output.dt)/output.dt
(which has been there for a looong time!) works when output.dt == 1, but gives too many rows for larger timesteps.I assume the original intention was to write
0:(23/output.dt)*output.dt
, but I replaced it withseq(0, 23, by = output.dt)
-- that behaves identically and is a lot clearer to me.Motivation and Context
Noticed while reviewing #3218
Review Time Estimate
Types of changes
Checklist: