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.

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

Is it important that we skip the first time-step? #4002

Open
glwagner opened this issue Dec 17, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Is it important that we skip the first time-step? #4002

glwagner opened this issue Dec 17, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
cleanup 🧹 Paying off technical debt

Comments

@glwagner
Copy link
Member

I had a minor concern that the newest change to run! added a little bit of indirection that inhibits interpretability. We can slightly simplify the algorithm (IMO) if we don't need to skip the first time-step here:

time_step_or_skip!(sim)

@tomchor can you advise?

@glwagner glwagner added the cleanup 🧹 Paying off technical debt label Dec 17, 2024
@tomchor
Copy link
Collaborator

tomchor commented Dec 17, 2024

I think it's very unlikely that the first step needs to be skipped, since I think we decided the source of these errors was the rounding up after many operations, no? So we could try removing that part of the code and I guess time will tell if this produces issues.

That said, I also don't see a problem with skipping the first iteration. Are you reluctant because there might be issues with a first iteration skip, or is it just a matter of simplifying the loop?

@glwagner
Copy link
Member Author

just makes the code easier to understand

@tomchor
Copy link
Collaborator

tomchor commented Dec 18, 2024

If you wanna make that change, I'm okay with it.

@glwagner
Copy link
Member Author

ok thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cleanup 🧹 Paying off technical debt
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants