Skip to content

Conversation

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member

This automatically runs the adiabatic minimization if existing_enhanced from the runcard is True.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 11, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #39 (80957bd) into master (29e0fb0) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #39   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage    0.00%   0.00%           
======================================
  Files          15      15           
  Lines        1335    1344    +9     
======================================
- Misses       1335    1344    +9     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/pycompressor/__init__.py 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pycompressor/compressing.py 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 29e0fb0...80957bd. Read the comment docs.

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member Author

@scarlehoff When you can, could you check whether this (5429600) is a reasonable change. It basically gets around manually running the adiabatic minimization. The solution I found is a bit archaic & brute but it works fine xD

@scarlehoff
Copy link
Member

I'll have a look. Is there a way to hide codecov warnigns? I find it very "noisy"

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member Author

I'll have a look. Is there a way to hide codecov warnigns? I find it very "noisy"

Good question! This is a part of the Github integration App for this repo which I am not able to remove.

@Radonirinaunimi Radonirinaunimi linked an issue Mar 18, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request
Radonirinaunimi and others added 4 commits March 18, 2021 09:07
Co-authored-by: Juacrumar <juacrumar@lairen.eu>
Co-authored-by: Juacrumar <juacrumar@lairen.eu>
Co-authored-by: Juacrumar <juacrumar@lairen.eu>
Co-authored-by: Juacrumar <juacrumar@lairen.eu>
@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member Author

@scarlehoff Thanks! I have this very bad habit of putting multiply definitions in one line (which I thought would prioritize visualization, but I have to get rid of that...).

@scarlehoff
Copy link
Member

It depends on the situation, in practice what a, b = c,d does is to create the tuple (c, d) and then break it into (a, b). But in this case each of c and d are lists themselves so it becomes a bit confusing (and prone to errors, because you can do a,b=[c,d] and it works as well!)

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member Author

It depends on the situation, in practice what a, b = c,d does is to create the tuple (c, d) and then break it into (a, b). But in this case each of c and d are lists themselves so it becomes a bit confusing (and prone to errors, because you can do a,b=[c,d] and it works as well!)

I definitely agree!

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member Author

I suppose this can be merged now.

@scarlehoff
Copy link
Member

I'm playing with it now. I have a few comments:

  • Add some warning/info that adiabatic optimization is running.
  • How do I avoid adiabatic optimization?

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.

Update documentation

2 participants