Absorption mu s dependent

[jsitarek]

absorption in DT for the case of gamma rays not moving along the jet included also a few tests of the newly added methods

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #81 (15d39d9) into master (489f1cc) will decrease coverage by 0.67%. The diff coverage is 99.44%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #81      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.97%   93.30%   -0.68%     
==========================================
  Files          30       31       +1     
  Lines        1727     1896     +169     
==========================================
+ Hits         1623     1769     +146     
- Misses        104      127      +23     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	93.30% <99.44%> (-0.68%)	:arrow_down:

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
agnpy/absorption/absorption.py	94.70% <97.82%> (-3.80%)	:arrow_down:
agnpy/tests/test_absorption.py	90.41% <100.00%> (-9.59%)	:arrow_down:
agnpy/tests/test_geometry.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
agnpy/utils/geometry.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

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 489f1cc...15d39d9. Read the comment docs.

[cosimoNigro]

Thanks a lot, @jsitarek, will check tomorrow! Can I ignore PR #79? You modified the same lines in this PR, in the computation of mu_star_shell. I am afraid if I merge #79 it will create a conflict (i.e. two PRs modifying the same lines).
Apologies for not checking #79 before.

[jsitarek]

Hi @cosimoNigro

sorry, probably I forked a new branch from already modified master (I should have made a dedicated branch for this fix in PR #79) and hence ended up with the same changes also in this branch. Please check this one first and if github does not realize that the changes are the same then we cancel the PR #79.

[cosimoNigro]

Dear @jsitarek,

thanks a lot for already taking care of this. I have left a small review, very minor comments only.

What I would like to ask you is to provide some written formulas with a sketch for the calculation you are introducing. I could only verify x_re_ring_mu_s in the case in which the target and emitted photon are in the same plane Can you please provide something like this for the formulas you introduced in utils.geometry? I do not want you to write them in latex, you can just send me a decent photo / scan of your calculation and I will take care of introducing them in the paper draft / docs. Thank you!

[jsitarek]

sure, I will provide the formulae (actually probably better that I write it in latex, my handwriting is terrible :-) )

[sourcery-ai[bot]]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

❌  Merging this PR will decrease code quality in the affected files by 3.80%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	0.24 ⭐	0.66 ⭐	0.42 👎
Method Length	66.19 🙂	77.54 🙂	11.35 👎
Working memory	11.99 😞	12.67 😞	0.68 👎
Quality	66.45% 🙂	62.65% 🙂	-3.80% 👎

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	647	958	311

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
agnpy/absorption/absorption.py	69.15% 🙂	66.52% 🙂	-2.63% 👎
agnpy/tests/test_absorption.py	60.96% 🙂	55.93% 🙂	-5.03% 👎
agnpy/utils/geometry.py	81.76% ⭐	76.70% ⭐	-5.06% 👎

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
agnpy/tests/test_absorption.py	TestAbsorptionMuS.test_tau_dt_mu_s_far	0 ⭐	285 ⛔	18 ⛔	42.88% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
agnpy/absorption/absorption.py	Absorption.evaluate_tau_ss_disk	0 ⭐	233 ⛔	18 ⛔	45.35% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
agnpy/tests/test_absorption.py	TestAbsorptionMuS.test_tau_dt_mu_s_simple	0 ⭐	210 ⛔	15 😞	49.80% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
agnpy/absorption/absorption.py	Absorption.evaluate_tau_blr	0 ⭐	147 😞	15 😞	55.37% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
agnpy/absorption/absorption.py	Absorption.evaluate_tau_dt_mu_s	0 ⭐	140 😞	15 😞	56.14% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Let us know what you think of it by mentioning @sourcery-ai in a comment.

[cosimoNigro]

Thanks, looks good for now, I am merging. If we want to change something we can open another PR. Thanks!