coveralls
commented
3 months ago Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9484437464
Details
- 1 of 2 (50.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
- 28 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
- Overall coverage increased (+0.08%) to 78.396%
| Changes Missing Coverage | Covered Lines | Changed/Added Lines | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fuse/plugins/micro_physics/yields.py | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | ||
| <!-- | Total: | 1 | 2 | 50.0% | --> |
| Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| fuse/plugins/micro_physics/yields.py | 28 | 76.43% | ||
| <!-- | Total: | 28 | --> |
| Totals | |
|---|---|
| Change from base Build 9451990213: | 0.08% |
| Covered Lines: | 2326 |
| Relevant Lines: | 2967 |
HenningSE
Instead of removing the interaction, keep it and just give the warning.
I find the "Remove interaction" much more dangerous than using a yield model that is not completely validated by data from NEST. The function can return values also for energies much above the validity range, and seems to give reasonable results.
Instead, removing interactions can result into tricky results if the analyst is not fully aware of the possibility.
Here attached the model validity and the results of nc.GetYields() for energy ranges outside the validity ( 3MeV for gamma and beta, 200keV for NR).
Just to make it extra clear:
The functions that define the yields model come from here in NEST.