get_foreground_model refactor

[cmbant]

Last one for the moment.. just tries to simplify the code so that foregrounds are used directly as arrays from model dictionary, rather than introducing new large temporary fg_dict structure, most of which was unused.

Now _get_foreground_model is not used internally; I assume this is intended for plotting etc, in which case probably best renamed to get_foreground_model as public facing.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 71.79487% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Please upload report for BASE (master@660e0fa). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/simonsobs/LAT_MFLike/pull/83?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=simonsobs) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #83 +/- ## ========================================= Coverage ? 83.33% ========================================= Files ? 3 Lines ? 396 Branches ? 0 ========================================= Hits ? 330 Misses ? 66 Partials ? 0 ``` | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/simonsobs/LAT_MFLike/pull/83?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=simonsobs) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [mflike/mflike.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/simonsobs/LAT_MFLike/pull/83?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=mflike%2Fmflike.py&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=simonsobs#diff-bWZsaWtlL21mbGlrZS5weQ==) | `90.40% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [mflike/theoryforge.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/simonsobs/LAT_MFLike/pull/83?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=mflike%2Ftheoryforge.py&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=simonsobs#diff-bWZsaWtlL3RoZW9yeWZvcmdlLnB5) | `76.43% <60.71%> (ø)` | |

[xgarrido]

It loooks sensible especially the add of sum_all/term variables. The _get_foreground_model is not only used for plotting purpose since pspipe relies on it to get the foreground model the same way the likelihood does. Since the function declaration does not change, I think we are safe (let's see what @thibautlouis and @adrien-laposta think about it).

[cmbant]

Btw, this currently seems to do nothing: https://github.com/simonsobs/LAT_MFLike/blob/master/mflike/theoryforge.py#L626

[sgiardie]

Btw, this currently seems to do nothing: https://github.com/simonsobs/LAT_MFLike/blob/master/mflike/theoryforge.py#L626

Yes that's true, it has not been fully developed due to the absence of a systematic template to use. I have actually modified that in a branch for some ACT tests, but I doubt it will end up in the master