JumpProcesses.jl
JumpProcesses.jl copied to clipboard
SciML
Ficticious jump algorithm for time-dependent variable rate jumps.
Extends the VariableRateJump interface to allow for user-defined bounds on time-dependent jump rates and look-ahead horizons for which the bound is valid. Implements a fictitious jump rejection algorithm based on https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004923.
Relevant issue: https://github.com/SciML/JumpProcesses.jl/issues/28
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2698773897
Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.
This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.
- For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
- To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
- For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.
Details
- 60 of 65 (92.31%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
- 46 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
- Overall coverage increased (+0.4%) to 88.737%
| Changes Missing Coverage | Covered Lines | Changed/Added Lines | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/aggregators/aggregators.jl | 0 | 5 | 0.0% |
| <!-- | Total: | 60 | 65 |
| Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % |
|---|---|---|
| src/jumps.jl | 20 | 87.36% |
| src/problem.jl | 26 | 69.13% |
| <!-- | Total: | 46 |
| Totals | |
|---|---|
| Change from base Build 2585636475: | 0.4% |
| Covered Lines: | 1946 |
| Relevant Lines: | 2193 |
💛 - Coveralls
@pihop still taking a look over this -- I've been delayed by the US holiday and travel for it. One quick comment is it would be great if you could add a test that actually tests accuracy by comparing some statistic against simulations using the current approach.
@pihop looks like tests are passing now. Please let me know when you feel this is done and you have added an accuracy test that compares against the current solvers (to check you are getting the correct statistics on some simple example like A+B -> C). I'll then go through and give it a review. Thanks!!!