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

A lot of changes #397

Merged
merged 78 commits into from
Feb 28, 2024
Merged

A lot of changes #397

merged 78 commits into from
Feb 28, 2024

Conversation

osorensen
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

* parallelization working

* updating tests

* styling

* updating test

* added info about parallelization
* added prior sampling

* updating news

* deleting submission file

* fixing the prior sampling

* styling

* added unit test for SMC starting from prior

* added test for sample_prior

* updating test after merging with TBB

* styling

* updating news
* fixing item name issue

* updating a unit test

* styling
* added handling of vector data #361

* styling
* updated set_priors function

* closes #370
* updated set_priors function

* closes #370

* fixed forgotten implementation
* updated documentation

* adding references section

* more documentation updates

* updated set_priors function

* closes #370

* implemented user-defined lag

* added lag, closes #369

* styling
* incremented dev version

* got rid of unused variable

* turned new_data into a list

* main part ready and passing tests

* styling and fixing docs issue

* Updating docs

* small steps

* adding user ids

* added the consistency vector to the particles

* updating examples

* updating more

* updating examples

* passing rcmdchck

* added deprecation notice for old burnin setting

* skipping the deprecation notice

* removed unnecessary brackets

* updated particle handling

* removed unused code

* refactoring complete

* ready for sequential updating

* we have a loop

* small fix

* added learning examples

* added test

* added tests

* styling and updating docs

* updated expected test output

* have to get rid of a test for now due to platform dependence
* added burnin

* made iteration number a class member

* simplified alpha update

* got rid of rho_index

* added alpha acceptance rate and test

* preparing for rho_acceptance

* added rho burnin

* added tracking of acceptance

* updating docs and examples

* styling
@osorensen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The Linter error is a false positive. It reports on the library() statements in this example, but since ggplot2 is listed in Imports I think it is absolutely fine. R CMD check does not report on it either.

# Observe one ranking at each of 12 timepoints
library(ggplot2)
data <- lapply(seq_len(nrow(potato_visual)), function(i) {
setup_rank_data(potato_visual[i, ])
})

@osorensen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Should close #394 and #386

@wleoncio
Copy link
Member

The Linter error is a false positive. It reports on the library() statements in this example, but since ggplot2 is listed in Imports I think it is absolutely fine. R CMD check does not report on it either.

# Observe one ranking at each of 12 timepoints
library(ggplot2)
data <- lapply(seq_len(nrow(potato_visual)), function(i) {
setup_rank_data(potato_visual[i, ])
})

Alright, but then perhaps we should add those lines to linter.yml so CI doesn't bothers us about it.

Copy link
Member

@wleoncio wleoncio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good job, interesting solution with the burnin() function!

@osorensen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The Linter error is a false positive. It reports on the library() statements in this example, but since ggplot2 is listed in Imports I think it is absolutely fine. R CMD check does not report on it either.

# Observe one ranking at each of 12 timepoints
library(ggplot2)
data <- lapply(seq_len(nrow(potato_visual)), function(i) {
setup_rank_data(potato_visual[i, ])
})

Alright, but then perhaps we should add those lines to linter.yml so CI doesn't bothers us about it.

Absolutely. I'll add that now.

@osorensen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wleoncio I think I managed to fix the linter issue, but do you know where CodeFactor gets its settings from?

@wleoncio
Copy link
Member

@wleoncio I think I managed to fix the linter issue, but do you know where CodeFactor gets its settings from?

Unfortunately, that's still a mystery to me 😅

@osorensen osorensen merged commit 390f601 into master Feb 28, 2024
16 of 17 checks passed
@osorensen osorensen deleted the develop branch February 28, 2024 14:44
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.

2 participants