-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
No-op code & docs cleanups #245
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: devel
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## devel #245 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 72.94% 72.81% -0.14%
==========================================
Files 50 54 +4
Lines 2218 2218
==========================================
- Hits 1618 1615 -3
- Misses 600 603 +3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
also remove unused _symbolic fields
This reverts commit 9729819.
This reverts commit 81a4bd9.
This reverts commit f0df653.
It is a simple and intuitive syntax and avoids declaring new types. Also allow specifying default constraint tolerance as `constraint_tol`.
use SemOptimizer(engine = :NLopt) instead of SemOptimizerNLopt() as this is a more universal scheme
I've rebased the PR after the #253 got merged. @Maximilian-Stefan-Ernst I have also noticed that you have implemented #246. So I have added commits that revert #246 in this PR, but also updated the optimization documentation to be in sync with the actual opt. engine API:
Please let me know if you have any concerns regarding these changes, I will be happy to address them. |
These are rather trivial commits cherry-picked from #193 that don't change anything essential, but once they are in, it should be easier to manage the rest.
The changes are:
using
directives from the individual unit test .jl files to the parent .jl fileRAMSymbolic
renamexxx_function
toxxx_eval!
as that better follows Julia naming conventions and should make the code a bit more readable (and shorter)This is a bit less trivial set of changes than the rest, but in the end it does not really change how the functions are calculated.
Except for switching p-values calculation to use
ccdf(x)
instead of1 - cdf(x)
-- this could potentially give more precise results for p-values close to 0.