-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
chat gpt for elegance on Will's functions and carrying the output file input through #63
Conversation
Totally nitpicky, do we want to allow users to save the output when full = FALSE? Lines 528 - 537. If so, may need another if statement with the else on line 527 |
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.
Before accepting a refactoring like this, we need some more tests to check specific outputs. Most/all of our existing tests just check that there was output created, with easy-to-pass tests like n >100
I'm unwilling to approve until we can show it produces the same results.
I'm very sceptical the new code for state-diversity will produce the same results
In any case, we don't know as we don't have any tests that would tell us. the current tests are very lenient,int
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.
most_likely_species defaults to the original_name if that name is accepted by the APC; this will be right for certain species subsets, but make errors in other cases, use with caution.
That worries me a little as an argument. Let's keep for now, but we should come up with use cases for each of these methods for documentation and clever code to avoid errors. If its too hard maybe collpase to most_likely_species is too risky as an option!
Regarding workflow, these tests should be added on a seperate branch off master, then be merged in here |
I forced rerun of jobs, once they pass I am happy for this to merge in :) |
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.
Passing all new tests! Approved! Great work
@wcornwell could you please squash and merge and delete branch once thats done :) |
Check out how good Chat-GPT is at decomposing functions. Worked the first time.