-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 122
TST: change all likelihood and waveform tests to use more recent waveforms (#791) #897
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
GregoryAshton
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall looks good thanks @akjm99. Just need to revert the cases where it is using an ROQ.
|
|
||
| trial_roq_paths = [ | ||
| "/roq_basis", | ||
| os.path.join(os.path.expanduser("~"), "ROQ_data/IMRPhenomPv2/4s"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here, I don't think we have ROQ data for XPHM yet, so this will need to be reverted (and may be why the CI is failing).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I think that's fine.
I'll note there is definitely ROQ data for XPHM on CIT but I don't think it's public (and is also huge).
| # Possible locations for the ROQ: in the docker image, local, or on CIT | ||
| trial_roq_paths = [ | ||
| "/roq_basis", | ||
| os.path.join(os.path.expanduser("~"), "ROQ_data/IMRPhenomPv2/4s"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as the case above
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And applied to the comments as well
| # Possible locations for the ROQ: in the docker image, local, or on CIT | ||
| trial_roq_paths = [ | ||
| "/roq_basis", | ||
| os.path.join(os.path.expanduser("~"), "ROQ_data/IMRPhenomPv2/4s"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And again.
| # Possible locations for the ROQ: in the docker image, local, or on CIT | ||
| trial_roq_paths = [ | ||
| "/roq_basis", | ||
| os.path.join(os.path.expanduser("~"), "ROQ_data/IMRPhenomPv2/4s"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And here
|
@akjm99 it looks like a commit from |
|
Hi @mj-will. I am not sure how that happened sorry! I followed the contributing guidelines which said to pull upstream, make edits, and then push to fork (?). When I tried to push my changes to my fork, it said there were conflicts and that I had to merge my new changes and merge/rebase my branch to my main (?) (which I think I managed to do, at least I was able to push to my fork after that...) |
Hmm, I think the upstream changed between you initially making the branch and now (the commit is from another recent PR). I think you've followed the contributing guidelines correctly but we're missing a section on updating a PR with changes from main after it has been made. I've opened an issue to track this: #901. Given we'll squash, this probably doesn't matter in this case, and it's probably more work to fix than it's worth. |
|
@akjm99 do you have time to have another look at this? I think ROQ tests just need switch to IMRPhenomPv2. |
| frequency_nodes_linear=fnodes_linear, | ||
| frequency_nodes_quadratic=fnodes_quadratic, | ||
| reference_frequency=50.0, | ||
| waveform_approximant="IMRPhenomPv2", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this line should be using IMRPhenomPv2 since we are passing in the ROQ terms just above
No description provided.