Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[bump minor] add IVAR to all forest outputs #1074

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Sep 17, 2024
Merged

Conversation

Waelthus
Copy link
Contributor

Adding the IVAR to outputs. Tests aren't fixed yet.

@Waelthus
Copy link
Contributor Author

all tests but script tests are passing now (at least locally on my machine), so updating the offending test files (delta files for BAO need to have the IVAR in the tests), once those are fixed things should be ready to go.

@Waelthus
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tests should be fine after merging #1075.
Note that this change would always add the IVAR to delta files, if we want to make it optional, additional logic and tests would be needed. Someone should also change the class diagrams accordingly such that Forest objects have (potentially optional) IVAR output and it's not a specialty of only Pk1dForests anymore...
Elsewise this would be ready to merge from my side.

Copy link
Collaborator

@iprafols iprafols left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Things look good, I'd say to merge this

@corentinravoux
Copy link
Contributor

The PR looks fine ! In any case I think this is a good thing to always add IVAR, I use it also for the Lya tomography.

@Waelthus Waelthus changed the title add IVAR to all forest outputs [bump minor] add IVAR to all forest outputs Sep 16, 2024
@Waelthus
Copy link
Contributor Author

bumping at least the minor version as the data format changes, even if only additions happen

Copy link
Contributor

@calumgordon calumgordon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me too.

@iprafols iprafols added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 17, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a conflict with the base branch Sep 17, 2024
@Waelthus Waelthus added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 17, 2024
Merged via the queue into master with commit bbea51b Sep 17, 2024
10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants