Feature/decorators simplify examples #1175
Conversation
…s. SimSpecs and GenSpecs can extract and set
…_simplify_examples
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1175 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 72.20% 72.36% +0.16%
===========================================
Files 93 93
Lines 8252 8275 +23
Branches 1467 1487 +20
===========================================
+ Hits 5958 5988 +30
+ Misses 2042 2036 -6
+ Partials 252 251 -1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
…s_simplify_examples
…_simplify_examples
|
@jlnav This greatly simplifies our many tests, which is nice. But I'm concerned it hides the necessary input/output relationships between the sims and gens. It is nice to have the decorators available, but we should think about how much we want to use them. |
Good point. We know for a given sim and gen that they're compatible if their outputs and inputs correspond. I just realized though, suppose a user tries to combine two user functions that are currently incompatible, their ins and outs don't match up. Changing the ins and outs within sim_specs and gen_specs doesn't solve their incompatibility! In fact, adjusting the ins/outs may cause the specs to pass validation, but errors would occur within the user function anyway. I'll probably undo the regression test changes, since those are more user-examples. |
| @@ -528,7 +530,9 @@ def persistent_uniform(_, persis_info, gen_specs, libE_info): | |||
|
|
|||
| def decorator(func): | |||
| setattr(func, "persis_in", fields) | |||
| func.__doc__ = f"\n **Persistent Input Fields:** ``{func.persis_inputs}``\n" + func.__doc__ | |||
| if not func.__doc__: | |||
| func.__doc__ = "" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there no test using persis_in? (Codecov says it's not covered)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These uncovered lines refer to user functions without docstrings, something that thankfully we have very few of! I'll see what I can do
| @@ -63,7 +63,6 @@ | |||
| # State the generating function, its arguments, output, and necessary parameters. | |||
| gen_specs = { | |||
| "gen_f": gen_f, # Generator function | |||
| "in": [], # Generator input | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is removing this line necessary. I would rather not change it.
| @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| ensemble.gen_specs = GenSpecs( | |||
| gen_f=gen_f, | |||
| inputs=[], # No input when start persistent generator | |||
Tentative refactoring of a handful of mostly functionality tests based on decorated example functions