-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
function update_weights_matrix, get_residual_matrix, reconstruct_data #19
Conversation
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.
good start! small gripe....please see inline.
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.
please write meaningful commit messages. updates
is not acceptable. There have to be updates or you can't even make a PR (git checks for differences). In the commit message, put what the intent of the changes was. For example, instead of "update tests" say "added test to check for zero's in the in put array in update_weights_matrix" or something like that.
… describe the nature of the parameters and return values.
… case. Added tests cases for get_residual_matrix to test negative and zero values. Corrected test cases for reconstruct_data
In "reconstruct_data" function, I realized the matlab code and my code yielded that same solution (besdies the slight difference in interpolation). However, the matlab code formatted the answer differently which is why is failed before. In my code, the blocks of the solution represented each moment, but in the matlab code the blocks represented each component (so the difference was only in the order of the columns). |
sounds good. This is still failing tests and marked as draft, but it looks as if it is approaching where it can be merged. Please just let me know when we get there. |
super! |
No description provided.