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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Exciton ratio #249

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from
Closed

Exciton ratio #249

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

HenningSE
Copy link
Collaborator

What does the code in this PR do / what does it improve?

This PR will exchange the number of excitons in the S1 timing simulation by the ratio of excitons to photons. It aims at solving #239.

Please include the following if applicable:

  • Update the docstring(s)
  • Bump plugin version(s)
  • Update the documentation
  • Tests to check the (new) code is working as desired.
  • Does it solve one of the GitHub open issues?

@HenningSE HenningSE requested a review from ramirezdiego July 16, 2024 13:07
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jul 16, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10053986419

Details

  • 3 of 4 (75.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 80.025%
Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
fuse/plugins/micro_physics/yields.py 2 3 66.67%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 10053983233: -0.02%
Covered Lines: 2532
Relevant Lines: 3164
💛 - Coveralls

@HenningSE HenningSE marked this pull request as ready for review July 16, 2024 14:22
@ramirezdiego
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks, Henning! To recap, we should agree on one of these two options:

  1. We calculate this ratio in the yields plugin, but then need to warn the user to set it in the instructions that bypass this step (and modify the csv input instructions accordingly).
  2. We make the calculation of this ratio only within the S1 propagation class.

I prefer the second, to avoid burdens to the users, but either is fine.

@HenningSE HenningSE mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2024
Merged
@HenningSE
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hi @ramirezdiego, thanks for your feedback. I opened a PR with option 2 here #251. We can then decide which one is better and merge one of the two PRs.

@ramirezdiego
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks! I prefer the second, hence closing this one.

@ramirezdiego ramirezdiego deleted the exciton_ratio branch July 26, 2024 06:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ramirezdiego ramirezdiego Awaiting requested review from ramirezdiego

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@HenningSE @coveralls @ramirezdiego