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

Bring in swurzel/lawson-criterion-paper for fusion cross section and reactivities #1806

Draft
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Bring in swurzel/lawson-criterion-paper for fusion cross section and reactivities #1806

wants to merge 11 commits into from

Conversation

StanczakDominik
Copy link
Member

@StanczakDominik StanczakDominik commented Nov 23, 2022 •
edited

Description

As per #110 (comment), I'm slowly bringing in @swurzel's https://github.com/swurzel/lawson-criterion-paper/tree/main. This is extremely work-in-progress, things will break, etc etc. This PR may be with us for a while. Just wanted to practice what I preach and work in the open 😅

Motivation and context, and related issues because here they're the very same

Closes #110.

Current work plan

  • bring in repo via git-subtree
  • adjust for project structure
  • make the notebooks run again
  • use notebooks to generate regression test data, create those tests
  • refactor, clean the code up from a Pythonic standpoint
  • optimize the code from a numerical perspective (something about slowly convergent integrals...?)
  • turn notebooks into documentation
  • add giant notes on original credit, original MIT license everywhere related

swurzel and others added 11 commits May 8, 2022 02:33
@review-notebook-app
Copy link

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

Powered by ReviewNB

@github-actions
Copy link

Thank you for contributing to PlasmaPy! The project's future depends deeply on contributors like you, so we deeply appreciate it! 🌱 The following checklist will be used by the code reviewer to help guide the code review process.

  • Overall
    • Does the PR do what it intends to do?
    • Except for very minor changes, is a changelog entry included and consistent with the changelog guide?
    • Are the continuous integration checks passing? (Most linter problems can be automagically fixed by commenting on this PR with pre-commit.ci autofix.)
  • Code
    • Is new/updated code understandable and consistent with the coding guide?
    • Are there ways to greatly simplify the implementation?
    • Are there any large functions that should be split up into shorter functions?
  • Tests
    • Are tests added/updated as required, and consistent with the testing guide?
    • Are the tests understandable?
    • Do the tests cover all important cases?
  • Docs
    • Are docs added/updated as required, and consistent with the doc guide?
    • Are the docs understandable?
    • Do the docs show up correctly in the preview, including Jupyter notebooks?

@StanczakDominik StanczakDominik self-assigned this Nov 23, 2022
@namurphy namurphy added the physical data Related to fundamental physical data, including atomic data label Mar 29, 2023
@namurphy namurphy added this to the Future milestone Feb 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@StanczakDominik StanczakDominik

Labels
physical data Related to fundamental physical data, including atomic data
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Future
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add functionality to find fusion reaction rates, cross sections, and energy generation rates
3 participants
@StanczakDominik @namurphy @swurzel