-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
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
Fitting fixes jvb #389
Fitting fixes jvb #389
Conversation
Hello @joelvbernier! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found: There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻 Comment last updated at 2022-02-15 04:00:42 UTC |
2829029
to
cf8ab1b
Compare
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.
LGTM after we add tqdm as a dependency...
Still needs unit tests, but I've tested it with an array of data including DCS. Also tested the updated "auto" powder calibration on a Pilatus. |
49a27b5
to
338ba17
Compare
338ba17
to
5caa07c
Compare
Adding a new 1-d spectrum fitting module for calibration that uses
lmfit
; this was really precipitated by the need to get the DCS pink beam function working. Constraints are essential. That use case is passing basic testing, but need to do several things:fitpeak
@saransh13 and @darrencpagan -- I am open to any ideas you have regarding enhancing the initial parameter estimation. What we currently have is ok, but might not be robust if the initial guess is a bit further off. I am aware that there very well may not be a better generic rubric, but I figured I would plant the seed.