Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[Feature Request]: Make validation optional #106

Closed
fsoubelet opened this issue Jan 27, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #107
Closed

[Feature Request]: Make validation optional #106

fsoubelet opened this issue Jan 27, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #107
Assignees
@fsoubelet
Labels
Type: Feature A (suggetion for a) new feature or enhancement in functionality.

Comments

@fsoubelet
Copy link
Member

Feature Description

As reported by some users, the validation step can be very slow on large dataframes (for instance sliced FCC lattice).

A good first step would be to make the validation step optional and leave the choice to users.

Possible Implementation

A new bool argument in the reader and writer functions, and an if statement before calling validate.
@fsoubelet fsoubelet added Type: Feature A (suggetion for a) new feature or enhancement in functionality. Minor labels Jan 27, 2023
@fsoubelet fsoubelet self-assigned this Jan 27, 2023
@fsoubelet fsoubelet mentioned this issue Jan 27, 2023
Merged
2 tasks
@fsoubelet fsoubelet linked a pull request Jan 27, 2023 that will close this issue
Optional validation step (and documentation improvements) #107
Merged
2 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@fsoubelet fsoubelet

Labels
Type: Feature A (suggetion for a) new feature or enhancement in functionality.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Optional validation step (and documentation improvements) pylhc/tfs
1 participant
@fsoubelet