Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

implement changes from PR #157 to fix lqcontrol docstring #297

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 20, 2017

Conversation

mmcky
Copy link
Contributor

@mmcky mmcky commented Apr 12, 2017

This PR

the only variation is to continued use of w_path rather than w_t used in PR #157

@mmcky
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmcky commented Apr 12, 2017

@sglyon. These changes were failing due to change in return object. Previously this method was returning Cw_path. Should this method return w_path as per docstring or Cw_path. This PR implements your previous fix.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.006%) to 83.04% when pulling 5ca783a on fix-lqcontrol-doc into 758620a on master.

@mmcky
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmcky commented Apr 12, 2017

Based on this comment

I think it is still meaningful. In the docstring we claimed to be returning the w_t, but we were actually returning C * w_t

Also the number of elements in the return value was incorrectly documented.

This is now correct. I have added in the dot(c, w_t) step in the test.

@sglyon
Copy link
Member

sglyon commented Apr 12, 2017

Hey @mmcky Sorry but I don't understand the question. Can you repeat?

@mmcky
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmcky commented Apr 12, 2017

Hey @sglyon. The comment above came from PR #157 - which was a PR you made to implement the original change. I intend to close PR #157 and merge this PR instead after review.

@mmcky
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmcky commented Apr 19, 2017

@sglyon Just to clarify the question.

Should this method return w_path as per docstring or Cw_path. Cw_path is dot(C, w_path)

The tests on the previous PR was failing because the test assumed the function was returning Cw_path and not w_path as per the docstring for the function.

This PR implements your previous fix that never got merged.

@sglyon
Copy link
Member

sglyon commented Apr 20, 2017

Given that the user will already have C inside the LSS instance and we can't really undo the dot, my preference would be to return w_path.

@sglyon sglyon merged commit 7113f1b into master Apr 20, 2017
@oyamad oyamad deleted the fix-lqcontrol-doc branch November 27, 2024 07:31
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants