Closed santisoler closed 7 months ago
@indiauppal, I think this is ready to be merged. Would you like to review it?
No worries if you don't, and there's no rush to do so. But I think it would be a nice experience for you!
If you agree, here is a GitHub guide on how to make a review: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/reviewing-proposed-changes-in-a-pull-request
Let me know what do you think.
Thanks @indiauppal for the review! Nice catches!
I've just pushed a few more changes: I filled the docstrings of the new private functions (which were a little bit scarse), and noticed that asking for the cast
was hard to explain, so I changed it for the shape
of the output arrays.
If CI doesn't fail, I'll merge this right away!
Thanks @santisoler for letting me review it!
No need to thank me, it's the other way around haha! BTW, don't feel you need to ask permission to review a PR that is interesting for you. Feel free to jump in and make the review!
Merge the two forward functions for magnetic fields of rectangular prisms into a single one named
prism_magnetic
that includes a newfield
argument, mimicking the interface of the gravity forward functions. Make the prism_magnetic` function to ask magnetization vectors as a tuple of three arrays, where each one of these arrays. Update tests accordingly. Update the user guide page about forward modelling of prisms.Relevant issues/PRs:
Fixes #446 and fixes #447