Allow pineko to check if the grid contains SV #24
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #24 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 39.24% 40.00% +0.75%
==========================================
Files 15 15
Lines 479 520 +41
==========================================
+ Hits 188 208 +20
- Misses 291 312 +21
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- this PR should sit on top of Scale Variations #19 since even scheme C is not available in master
- I assume this will also trigger more minor issues (e.g. the numpy doc style ...)
|
Should I rebase this on #19 then? @felixhekhorn |
yes, please |
|
@felixhekhorn I have done but now there are some problems on stuffs that I have not touched. Do you know why? |
you mean here in the workflow? keep in mind that this only works together with NNPDF/pineappl#138 so an unpublished version - check locally instead |
|
Could you please do me a favour and also adjust the arguments of https://github.com/N3PDF/pineko/blob/b4dc401e4feef5cffc4b137081c246b66c8ea8d8/src/pineko/evolve.py#L79 such that in |
So you want that also |
|
@felixhekhorn Ok but then we need to give up the fancy print with the grid path because we don't know that information anymore. Is it ok for you? |
Mmm, actually, I like that one because it is telling me what is happening ... I guess we can lift it to the calling functions ... maybe on the "theory" side we can even adjust it a bit (since there the key ingredient is actually repeated 3 times ...) |
I should have solved both the problems (the conflicts and the workflow failing) |
| @@ -346,6 +347,15 @@ def fk(self, name, grid_path, tcard, pdf): | |||
| do_log = self.activate_logging( | |||
| paths["logs"]["fk"], f"{self.theory_id}-{name}-{pdf}.log" | |||
| ) | |||
| # check if grid contains SV if theory is requesting them | |||
| xir = tcard["XIR"] | |||
| xif = tcard["XIF"] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@felixhekhorn didn't we have another variable, e.g. in yadism. In order to compute scale variations, even when we are not given a specific value?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, we have there "activateFact" (or similar name) in order to decide whether to compute the SV grids - however for pineko this is not sufficient since we need to collapse on the actual value - or what were you thinking?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, so it is just the first part of the comment to be referred to the code below.
Maybe I'd just move it: first # check if sv are requested then # in case of sv, check they are available in the grid.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you mean just the comments right? because the code is already doing that: first it checks if the theory is asking for scale-variations and then it checks whether they are available in the gird.
|
I hope github is joking |
|
this PR is next in line ... open issues are |
|
for this, should I add a couple of tests or we add them in a separate PR? because codecov is complaining.... |
|
@andreab1997 can you test the new refactored version of |
sure |
I tried that and it works. However I believe we should not add unit tests in this PR but rather in #25 mainly because we need actual grids to test the cli (as are provided by #25). So I think we can merge this now |
let's close this PR and also #25, #27, #28 - and have a restart from a new |
Yes, I am asking the review only for the test part, then I believe we can merge |
|
Can I merge this? @felixhekhorn @alecandido |
We want to allow pineko to check if scale variations are available in a grid if we are computing a scale-varied FK table.