-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
Showing
4 changed files
with
21 additions
and
6 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
458218e
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mjkramer I noticed that line 363 will get the incorrect value for number of event IDs sometimes when the default value for
max_events_per_file = 1000
(looking at non-spill simulations). So you have to manually changemax_events_per_file
to match the number of events in the file, which seems like an unnecessary step. In one instance I found that doing this still didn't fix the problem, where in a file with 1M events,num_evids
would be incorrect (999977), leading to a "operands could not be broadcast together" error at thevertices['t_event'] = np.repeat(event_times.get(),counts)
line. So it looks like we need to be a little careful with how this part of the code is handled.