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

v0.3.0 release #182

Open
9 tasks
zsusswein opened this issue Jan 29, 2025 · 3 comments
Open
9 tasks

v0.3.0 release #182

zsusswein opened this issue Jan 29, 2025 · 3 comments

Comments

@zsusswein
Copy link
Collaborator

This release focuses on cleanup and testing of known bugs. It has room to add additional documentation, bugs, or feature requests as they become apparent.

The goal for this release is the end of March.

CI/CD

  • Move actions to cfa-actions and implement here?

Model

Vignette

  • Vignette #38
  • If needed, another vignette with a different focus?
@zsusswein
Copy link
Collaborator Author

There's an open question for @kgostic about the urgency of thinking about a random walk and whether we want to track it in this release or one after? See #37 for more.

@kgostic
Copy link
Collaborator

kgostic commented Jan 30, 2025

Thanks for calling me in.

I do think there's a lot of interest from JP and JA in being able to compare the daily random walk to the approximate GP. There have been a few weeks where the GP may have amplified non-neutral end behavior and affected the trend. We've been asked to test this several times by running an rw side by side and doing the comparison, but in the absence of an easy way to deploy the RW, I keep kicking this down the road.

I agree with @zsusswein that if we do this the priority should be simplicity and readability. We're building this code for ourselves, not for some general user, and we want our partners to be able to read what we're doing easily. Can we just add an if/else statement and ignore the gp-specific parameters if the rw is specified? I know this is bad design because in theory because of the potential for explosive complexity, but we've been running this pipeline for almost two years now and we know that this is the one thing that we actually do want to switch between sometimes.

@kgostic
Copy link
Collaborator

kgostic commented Jan 30, 2025

I'll add that if this is going to be really challenging to implement, we could save it for the pyrenew testing, or for after we build a better comparison tool. Let's talk f2f about difficulty @zsusswein

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants