Closed kmdalton closed 4 months ago
what could be useful indicators that the symop the user provides is correct? Perhaps % children with a parent?
Attention: Patch coverage is 20.00000%
with 8 lines
in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 78.47%. Comparing base (
0d5e4a4
) to head (ee226e7
).:exclamation: Current head ee226e7 differs from pull request most recent head 2147ca8. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2147ca8 to get more accurate results
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
careless/io/manager.py | 16.66% | 5 Missing :warning: |
careless/models/priors/wilson.py | 25.00% | 3 Missing :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
I don't think the % of child reflections which can be mapped into the parent ASU is diagnostic. I can think of correct examples where the number will be at most 50% and incorrect examples where it could be 100%. I think that validating the choice of symops is outside of the scope of what I can do inside the careless CLI. I would think that CCsym is probably the most diagnostic reciprocal space measure.
OK, I am fine with merging this and closing the corresponding issue. The implementation is sound. The tricky parts (using the correct symops and properly treating the Miller indices-as-metadata) are external to Careless.
This PR adds the option to provide reindexing operations for edges in the Double Wilson prior graph.