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

ensure that correct initial params are used when re-fitting a ModelResult #961

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 19, 2024

Conversation

newville
Copy link
Member

This fixes #960 and #954.

Type of Changes
  • Bug fix
  • New feature
  • Refactoring / maintenance
  • Documentation / examples
Tested on

Python: 3.11.5 | packaged by conda-forge | (main, Aug 27 2023, 03:35:23) [Clang 15.0.7 ]

lmfit: 1.3.1.post8+gb72cfb28.d20240713, scipy: 1.13.1, numpy: 1.26.4, asteval: 1.0.1, uncertainties: 3.2.2

Verification

Have you

  • included docstrings that follow PEP 257?
  • referenced existing Issue and/or provided relevant link to mailing list?
  • verified that existing tests pass locally?
  • verified that the documentation builds locally?
  • squashed/minimized your commits and written descriptive commit messages?
  • added or updated existing tests to cover the changes?
  • updated the documentation and/or added an entry to the release notes (doc/whatsnew.rst)?
  • added an example?

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 13, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 71.42857% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93.18%. Comparing base (b72cfb2) to head (69db101).

Files Patch % Lines
lmfit/model.py 71.42% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #961      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.20%   93.18%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          10       10              
  Lines        3765     3769       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         3509     3512       +3     
- Misses        256      257       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@newville
Copy link
Member Author

@reneeotten If you agree, I think squash-merging this would allow tagging and pushing version 1.3.2.

@newville
Copy link
Member Author

@reneeotten I'm going to (squash) merge this and tag and push as 1.3.2

@newville newville merged commit 78edec0 into master Jul 19, 2024
14 checks passed
@reneeotten
Copy link
Contributor

@reneeotten I'm going to (squash) merge this and tag and push as 1.3.2

sorry @newville and thanks for fixing this! Between work and a newborn there isn't too much time for this at the moment... 😉

@newville
Copy link
Member Author

@reneeotten No worries (I hear you!). And also: Congratulations!

@reneeotten reneeotten deleted the model_refit branch August 17, 2024 02:20
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.

ModelResult.fit() does not use provided params
2 participants