-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
docs: add examples for operations #297
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #297 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 8 8
Lines 500 500
=========================================
Hits 500 500 |
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.
this is great! Just one comment.
|
||
4) get the value of the DiffractionObject at a given point in one of the xarrays | ||
You can also do binary operations between two diffraction objects, as long as their yarrays have the same length. |
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.
is the condition "same length xarray" or "on the same q/tth/d-array
"? I think it should be the latter or we are adding things incorrectly. Please can you check the code. If the code is doing it right, change the doc. If hte doc is right, we probably should revisit hte tests and code.
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.
Yeah I think the code only checks for the length of yarrays. I can edit the test on this PR.
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.
Actually I wanna talk to @bobleesj first before making any changes. His test cases seem to be carefully chosen.. Made this into a new issue #298. @sbillinge I changed the docs and it's ready for review
Thanks @yucongalicechen LGTM |
closes #248
@sbillinge ready for review