Some bugfixes#125
Conversation
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Just need to re-run CI once AbstractGPs 0.5.11 is released |
| function AbstractGPs.elbo( | ||
| sva::SparseVariationalApproximation, | ||
| fx::FiniteGP{<:AbstractGP,<:AbstractVector,<:Diagonal{<:Real,<:Fill}}, | ||
| fx::FiniteGP{<:AbstractGP,<:AbstractVector,<:Union{Diagonal{<:Real,<:Fill},ScalMat}}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should probably be in a seperate issue, but I think that this is too restrictive of a type constraint - it depends too much on implementation details of AbstractGPs (which is why it broke in the first place) and isn't extensible. I'm pretty sure I wrote it in the first place, so I'll make a PR to change it once this one's in - but what do people think about it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd be happy for it to become cleaner, go ahead:) - what would be a better way of checking though?
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #125 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.61% 93.30% -0.31%
==========================================
Files 5 4 -1
Lines 329 284 -45
==========================================
- Hits 308 265 -43
+ Misses 21 19 -2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@st-- looks like it's passing now |
2 participants
Also see #126. This one is ready for merging though.