Hi all,
Thanks to efforts from Kacper, Matt, and myself we now have a working
github mirror:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt-test
This repo is available purely for testing purposes. It should always be in
sync with the latest changes in the bitbucket repository. There is a chance
that we will need to redo the conversion and change all the hashes so don't
rely on this repo being here forever.
In addition, Kacper has verified that our Jenkins test suite works more or
less out of the box on a repo on github, so it should be pretty easy to set
up continuous integration on github when we "flip the switch".
Matt set up a repo on github to track the migration process:
https://github.com/yt-project/bb-migration/issues
If you'd like to help out then then that issue tracker is probably the
first place you should look.
According to the YTEP tracking this process (
https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/ytep/pull-requests/68/), we are about
halfway done with "stage 1".
I think these two issues would be perfect for someone who hasn't been
involved up until now to take on:
* Updating the code for "yt update" to work properly with an installation
from a git checkout of yt. We might explore adding an optional dependency
on gitpython (http://gitpython.readthedocs.io/en/stable/) for this.
* Migrate the supplemental repositories. This is very straightforward, just
tedious because the same steps need to be repeated for all the repos.
Finally if you have push access to the main yt repo (that generally means
that you are a yt project "member") then you should comment on this issue
so we know what your github username is:
https://github.com/yt-project/bb-migration/issues/8
I'd say we're on pace for making the switch Soon (TM).
-Nathan
New issue 1344: Metallicity is broken in the stream frontend for grid data
https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issues/1344/metallicity-is-broken-in-t…
John ZuHone:
If one sets up a stream dataset with metallicity as an input field, the values get transformed. A simple script demonstrates this:
```python
import numpy as np
import yt
Z = np.random.uniform(size=(32,32,32))
d = np.random.uniform(size=(32,32,32))
data = {"density": d, "metallicity": Z}
ds = yt.load_uniform_grid(data, (32,32,32))
dd = ds.all_data()
print(Z.max())
print(dd["metallicity"].max())
```
gives:
```pycon
0.99996801409647373
0.012949585782549334 dimensionless
```
This happens regardless if one sets the units in the dict above. I am pretty sure that somehow the derived field for `metallicity` is being used instead, because that rescales `metal_density` by the solar value, and somehow the input field is getting interpreted as `metal_density`.
This bug got accidentally introduced in yt 3.3.2 with this PR:
https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/pull-requests/2331/adding-metallicity-…
I'll see if I can track it down.
Responsible: jzuhone
Hi folks,
Here's a draft YTEP about migration:
https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/ytep/pull-requests/68/adding-draft-github…
I'll update with comments soon, once a sample conversion has been made and
put on the GH page.
Comments are welcome, but right now, it'd be much more useful if they were
along the lines of "here's something that also will need to be done" since
this is in its early phases. But, it's also probably true that we can
start moving forward with phase 1 toward phase 2 already.
-Matt
Hi everyone,
We've landed on Wednesday, April 19 at 4pm EDT (1pm PDT) for the next team
meeting. If you were on the scheduling poll, I'll make sure you'll get an
invite to the hangout. If anyone else would like to join, just send me an
email.
See you then.
Britton
Hi all,
I'd like to propose adding a new particle union that should be defined for
all datasets that include particles. This came up in the context of the
demeshening work (see
https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/ytep/pull-requests/67 for more details).
Right now many of the derived quantities make a distinction between
calculating results using just the gas or just the particles or both. Up
until now they have calculated the results for particles using particle
fields from the 'all' particle union. This makes perfect sense for AMR data
but doesn't really make sense for SPH data, since it will double-count SPH
particles. In fact, I think this is an issue even without the demeshening,
but the demeshening makes it more starkly apparent.
I'd like to propose defining a new "n-body" particle union (suggestions for
alternate names are very welcome) that will be defined for all yt datasets.
This union will be identical to the 'all' particle union for AMR data and
N-body particle data, but for SPH data will only include the particle types
that aren't SPH particles (if any). That means the "n-body" particle type
represents infinitesimal particles but not particles that have finite
extents (e.g. an SPH particle's smoothing region).
I think this new particle type would probably be generically useful beyond
just the derived quantities, maybe even more useful than "all". I also kind
of prefer the name "n-body" to "all" since it more prominently indicates
that it's associated with particle data.
Please let me know if you have thoughts or suggestions about this proposal.
I'm happy to draft a YTEP or update YTEP-0031 with more details if people
want to see that.
-Nathan