-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Fix apfel benchmarks #274
Fix apfel benchmarks #274
Conversation
|
Co-authored-by: Felix Hekhorn <[email protected]>
Actually this is in conflict with #284 we need to decide a merge order - and since this is older: what are we missing to merge? |
Co-authored-by: Alessandro Candido <[email protected]>
Sorry I have seen it now. The problem is in eko/src/ekomark/benchmark/runner.py Line 249 in 1313263
for some reason the q values are in wrong order, i.e. edit: your commit fixed it |
indeed - I like the fix in #284 better |
@felixhekhorn @alecandido In the apfel benchmarks (and also in banana) we still have |
Fine by me, for as long as it is not tracking EKO and yadism it is reasonable not to implement a third convention |
didn't we have this behaviour already at some point of the 1M iterations? |
Yes in |
Last commit shows what I had in mind: I changed |
Moreover in this way both |
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.
You need to fix (+ release + update) banana before merging, else we're breaking the benchmarks that are supposed to fix in this PR again
@niclaurenti you need to run |
for me we can merge |
let's wait for https://github.com/NNPDF/eko/actions/runs/5280648705/jobs/9553070195 ... PS: can you double check you can run APFEL still (i.e. with new banana)? |
It works |
Fixing apfel benchmarks. Tomorrow I will run also the other benchmarks to see if they are broken or not