Skip to content

Conversation

@zsusswein
Copy link
Collaborator

This change allows us to switch between the GP and the random walk
options based on the priors specified in the config. It errors if priors
for both the GP and the RW are supplied.

It still needs test coverage and a change in the config generator to
actually supply the needed values.

While I was in here, I fixed the broken diagnostic test.

Closes #315

zsusswein and others added 6 commits August 13, 2025 22:08
Rather than test for strict equality, test for expected properties.
This approach is more robust to changes in the model over time because
it looks for the type and properties of output. We don't expect the
exact diagnostic flags to remain the same in all settings.
This change allows us to switch between the GP and the random walk
options based on the priors specified in the config. It errors if priors
for both the GP and the RW are supplied.

It still needs test coverage and a change in the config generator to
actually supply the needed values.
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Aug 14, 2025

Thank you for your contribution @micahwiesner67 🚀! Your pkgdown-site is ready for download 👉 here 👈!
(The artifact expires on 2025-09-23T14:43:45Z. You can re-generate it by re-running the workflow here.)

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.

Create less brittle unit tests in test-diagnostics

4 participants