Skip to content

Fix _NoneLinearLSQFitter having a required extra arg - #16982

Merged
astrofrog merged 3 commits into
astropy:mainfrom
Cadair:fix_fitter_args
Sep 12, 2024
Merged

Fix _NoneLinearLSQFitter having a required extra arg#16982
astrofrog merged 3 commits into
astropy:mainfrom
Cadair:fix_fitter_args

Conversation

@Cadair

@Cadair Cadair commented Sep 10, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This should address #16673 (comment) but I had to sacrifice the performance of LevMarLSQFitter to the gods of shitty code and backwards compatibility.

If this exercise has taught me anything, it's that fitting.py needs a major (breaking) refactor 🔥.

  • By checking this box, the PR author has requested that maintainers do NOT use the "Squash and Merge" button. Maintainers should respect this when possible; however, the final decision is at the discretion of the maintainer that merges the PR.

closes #16979

@Cadair
Fix _NoneLinearLSQFitter having a required extra arg
5f25ca7 
We now use the kwargs feature of scipy.optmize.least_squares to pass the
context through, but this means that the old (and should be deprecated)
LevMarLSQFitter doesn't get the performance boost.
@Cadair
Cadair requested a review from a team as a code owner September 10, 2024 10:12
@Cadair
Cadair requested review from a team and astrofrog and removed request for a team September 10, 2024 10:12
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 10, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

  • Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
  • Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
  • Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
  • Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
  • Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
  • Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
  • Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
  • Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
  • At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

@Cadair Cadair added this to the v7.0.0 milestone Sep 10, 2024
astrofrog
astrofrog reviewed Sep 10, 2024
View reviewed changes
Comment thread astropy/modeling/fitting.py Outdated
@pllim pllim mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2024
Merged
1 task done
@pllim
pllim requested a review from mcara September 10, 2024 17:19
@pllim pllim added Bug Affects-dev PRs and issues that do not impact an existing Astropy release API change PRs and issues that change an existing API, possibly requiring a deprecation period benchmark Run benchmarks for a PR labels Sep 10, 2024
@pllim

pllim commented Sep 10, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

How much sacrifice are we talking about here?

@mcara , are you satisfied with this fix?

@pllim pllim mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2024
Closed
neutrinoceros
neutrinoceros reviewed Sep 10, 2024
View reviewed changes
Comment thread astropy/modeling/fitting.py Outdated
@pllim

pllim commented Sep 10, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

For once, the benchmark results might be related.

| Change   | Before [7c77a0f3]    | After [060118be]    |   Ratio | Benchmark (Parameter)                                   |
|----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| +        | 4.20±0.3ms           | 5.91±0.3ms          |    1.41 | modeling.fitting.time_combined_gauss_1d_LevMarLSQFitter |

SOME BENCHMARKS HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.
PERFORMANCE DECREASED.

@mcara

mcara commented Sep 11, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mcara , are you satisfied with this fix?

@pllim I think this solves the issue of backward compatibility.

mcara
mcara approved these changes Sep 11, 2024
View reviewed changes

@mcara mcara left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@pllim

pllim commented Sep 11, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think we're waiting for Tom's comment at #16982 (comment) to be resolved.

astrofrog
astrofrog requested changes Sep 12, 2024
View reviewed changes
Comment thread astropy/modeling/fitting.py Outdated
astrofrog
astrofrog reviewed Sep 12, 2024
View reviewed changes
Comment thread astropy/modeling/fitting.py Outdated
astrofrog
astrofrog approved these changes Sep 12, 2024
View reviewed changes

@astrofrog astrofrog left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@Cadair

Cadair commented Sep 12, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

:shipit: ?

@astrofrog
astrofrog merged commit 84c595e into astropy:main Sep 12, 2024
@Cadair
Cadair deleted the fix_fitter_args branch September 12, 2024 09:48
@mcara

mcara commented Sep 27, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mcara , are you satisfied with this fix?

@pllim I think this solves the issue of backward compatibility.

Sigh... not really. My bad: I should have run full tests. I didn't notice the change of fitparam_indices. This breaks old code.

@mcara

mcara commented Sep 27, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

https://github.com/spacetelescope/tweakwcs/actions/runs/11073910939/job/30771524455?pr=212#step:10:193

=========================== short test summary info ============================
FAILED tweakwcs/tests/test_linearfit.py::test_levmar2x2_multivariate - TypeError: _LevMarLSQFitter2x2.objective_function() got an unexpected keyword argument 'fit_param_indices'

@mcara

mcara commented Sep 27, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I fixed the issue on my side so again this is not of importance for me (I think...).

@pllim pllim mentioned this pull request Sep 27, 2024
Closed
@pllim

pllim commented Sep 27, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks for reporting back, @mcara . I opened #17085 follow-up issue that blocks v7.0 release until it is resolved.

@Cadair Cadair mentioned this pull request Oct 1, 2024
Merged
1 task
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros neutrinoceros left review comments
@astrofrog astrofrog astrofrog approved these changes
@mcara mcara mcara approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

Affects-dev PRs and issues that do not impact an existing Astropy release API change PRs and issues that change an existing API, possibly requiring a deprecation period benchmark Run benchmarks for a PR Bug modeling no-changelog-entry-needed

Projects

None yet

Milestone

v7.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@Cadair @pllim @mcara @astrofrog @neutrinoceros