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

MNT: remove unused convolution benchmark code #17494

Conversation

neutrinoceros
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Alternative to #17438, as suggested therein.
I checked that coverage doesn't incur a drop following this removal as requested by @keflavich.

close #17438
ref #17430

  • 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.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2024

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.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2024

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

Copy link
Member

@larrybradley larrybradley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Do you plan to move this file to https://github.com/astropy/astropy-benchmarks?

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't, right now, but I'd be happy to if you think we should !

@larrybradley
Copy link
Member

It's up to @keflavich.

@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor

I'd like it if possible. The performance of convolution came up as a question previously:
#11242

I think there was also a stackoverflow issue or an astropy mailing list issue about convolution speed - this is a big concern for a wide range of users, so the benchmark is important.

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looking into it now, and actually I think the existing convolution benchmarks from astropy/astropy-benchmarks#73 are already a translation of this script, with an important difference that only convolve is tested, not convolve_fft, so I've ported just this missing part in astropy/astropy-benchmarks#127

@larrybradley
Copy link
Member

Thanks, @neutrinoceros.

@larrybradley larrybradley merged commit 506b1eb into astropy:main Dec 6, 2024
36 of 37 checks passed
@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros deleted the convolution/mnt/remove_unused_benchmark_code branch December 6, 2024 20:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants