@sglyon. These changes were failing due to change in return object. Previously this method was returning Cw_path. Should this method return w_path as per docstring or Cw_path. This PR implements your previous fix.

Coverage increased (+0.006%) to 83.04% when pulling 5ca783a on fix-lqcontrol-doc into 758620a on master.

Based on this comment

I think it is still meaningful. In the docstring we claimed to be returning the w_t, but we were actually returning C * w_t

Also the number of elements in the return value was incorrectly documented.

This is now correct. I have added in the dot(c, w_t) step in the test.

Hey @mmcky Sorry but I don't understand the question. Can you repeat?

Hey @sglyon. The comment above came from PR #157 - which was a PR you made to implement the original change. I intend to close PR #157 and merge this PR instead after review.

@sglyon Just to clarify the question.

Should this method return w_path as per docstring or Cw_path. Cw_path is dot(C, w_path)

The tests on the previous PR was failing because the test assumed the function was returning Cw_path and not w_path as per the docstring for the function.

This PR implements your previous fix that never got merged.

Given that the user will already have C inside the LSS instance and we can't really undo the dot, my preference would be to return w_path.