search

QInfer / python-qinfer

Library for Bayesian inference via sequential Monte Carlo for quantum parameter estimation.
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
92 stars 31 forks source link

Fixed minor resampler shape bug #139

Closed ihincks closed 7 years ago

ihincks commented 7 years ago

The length of the weights array was wrong.

coveralls commented 7 years ago

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 74.182% when pulling 27558387666e29070f7d0a24548a4dfb2c24542b on ihincks:bugfix-resampler-weight-shape into 41ddbad11fdd4b4cca9348072b4cbfb6cdd20cbd on QInfer:master.

coveralls commented 7 years ago

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 74.182% when pulling 27558387666e29070f7d0a24548a4dfb2c24542b on ihincks:bugfix-resampler-weight-shape into 41ddbad11fdd4b4cca9348072b4cbfb6cdd20cbd on QInfer:master.

coveralls commented 7 years ago

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 74.182% when pulling 27558387666e29070f7d0a24548a4dfb2c24542b on ihincks:bugfix-resampler-weight-shape into 41ddbad11fdd4b4cca9348072b4cbfb6cdd20cbd on QInfer:master.

ihincks commented 7 years ago

Just saw this already has an issue, #103 .

cgranade commented 7 years ago

Looks like the build failures are extremely minor:

File "guide/models.rst", line 130, in default
Failed example:
    print(eps[0])
Expected:
    (12.3, 2)
Got:
    ( 12.3, 2)

In general, it'd be nice if there was a way to make the DOCTEST=1 builds a bit more robust to changes in whitespace and whatnot; this isn't the first time that's caused a build failure, after all.

Given that, I'm happy to merge in; thanks for fixing this one!