Skip to content

Conversation

@ReneSkukies
Copy link
Member

Related issues

Closes #

Checklist

  • [x ] I am following the contributing guidelines
  • [ x] Tests are passing
  • Lint workflow is passing
  • [ x] Docs were updated and workflow is passing

@ReneSkukies ReneSkukies requested a review from behinger October 23, 2025 12:08
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 23, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.58%. Comparing base (d8ddbbf) to head (b2a3b9e).
⚠️ Report is 52 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main      #20      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   91.58%   -8.42%     
===========================================
  Files            1        5       +4     
  Lines            2      321     +319     
===========================================
+ Hits             2      294     +292     
- Misses           0       27      +27     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Member

@behinger behinger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some further comments:

  • Any reason to have the ride methods in a folder ride?
  • Any reason that the ride methods have a ride_ in the filenames?
  • The docs currently dont show any plots
  • you seem to have still quite some code doubling in ride_classic_algorithm and ride_unfold_algorithm. I mostly checked the "prepare_data" phase, which reads near 1:1. I generally would prefer to have one "master"-loop?+´
  • I think similarities between both approaches would appear starkly, once the code is refactored into smaller functions. Right now it is a very large near-monolithic function

I didnt look much more into the functions, because if you decide to put both methods together, I wouldnt need to review two separate files :)

r_range = [0, 0.8],
c_range = [-0.4, 0.4],
c_estimation_range = [-0.1, 0.9],
formulas = [@formula(0 ~ 1), @formula(0 ~ 1), @formula(0 ~ 1 + reaction_time)] # formulas used for S, R, and C component
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

would it make sense to do:
formulas = ['S'=>@formula(0~1),'C'=>@formula(0~1),'R'=>@formula(0~1)], e.g. as a list of pairs? that would generalize to more events more readily and doesnt have the issue of order. You the only have to splice in the firbasis in the fit command down below

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