Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Handling vetoes and timeslides in pygrb mini followups #4941
Handling vetoes and timeslides in pygrb mini followups #4941
Changes from 4 commits
b803a81
1835eb7
515fcf4
52ae576
63b5b64
7a4914b
ffb2581
e68b40b
a5baa93
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 agree with the change of name of the function. But since this and its precursor do two different things, shouldn't we keep them both? (see also comment on the output)
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.
See the answer above. The call to the old function will be removed throughout PyGRB.
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.
Aren't we using this anymore? If just one of the functions is kept, maybe one could return the
found_trigs
as well as thebestNR
?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.
The user will get the
'network/reweighted_snr'
by callingextract_trig_properties
with'network/reweighted_snr'
among thekeys
. So this function is not returning thefound_trigs
dictionary with thekeys
requested (and'network/reweighted_snr'
may be one of these).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.
pycbc_pygrb_efficiency
,pycbc_pygrb_page_tables
, andpycbc_pygrb_plot_stats_distribution
are using this function and need three outputs not to break.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.
Correct, in the development version these scripts will call
extract_trig_properties
to get these quantities. But, I am breaking down the many changes in multiple PRs so that the diffs may be parsed with reasonable effort: one big PR would be complicated to handle for a reviewer.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 agree with breaking it down, but approving this PR before any of the others would find difficult to run workflows without issues.
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.
This was true for quite a while until PR #4909, when PyCBC allowed to generate a (working) PyGRB workflow, but without vetoes. As for previous "PR series" that took us to that point, the idea is that we are enabling a new big feature and, by breaking changes down, accepting that the intermediate states of PyCBC between PR #4909 and the completion of this PR review work will break PyGRB again. At that point we will have a PyCBC where PyGRB workflows are fully working and with vetoes. It will then be the right moment to have a new CI/CD test with a small PyGRB search and hence stop this modus operandi. At the moment PyGRB is already broken on master :-)