Skip to content

Added empircal_sinkhorn_divergence function #13

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

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Jun 3, 2021

Conversation

davibarreira
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jun 2, 2021

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 902931689

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.

Details

  • 2 of 2 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 100.0%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 896064425: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 25
Relevant Lines: 25

💛 - Coveralls

Copy link
Member

@devmotion devmotion left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR! Can you make the new function consistent with the existing ones? Ie,

  • remove all keyword arguments
  • remove all more detailed explanations and link to POT instead
  • add a doctest example such that coverage stays at 100%

davibarreira and others added 4 commits June 2, 2021 19:21
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link
Member

@devmotion devmotion left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, just some minor suggestions left. Can you update the version number as well?

@davibarreira
Copy link
Member Author

I don't know what is this error with JuliaNightly, but it looks like it's not actually related to my PR.

@devmotion
Copy link
Member

I don't know what is this error with JuliaNightly, but it looks like it's not actually related to my PR.

No, they are known and caused by some deprecation in the Julia master branch that is not handled in PyCall yet (due to the deprecations the output of the doctests is different).

@devmotion devmotion merged commit c7d0f05 into JuliaOptimalTransport:main Jun 3, 2021
@devmotion
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the PR, I'll make a new release right away!

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.

3 participants