[MNT] - Fix order of reporting values in bw limits warning#268
Merged
TomDonoghue merged 1 commit intomainfrom Jun 29, 2023
Merged
[MNT] - Fix order of reporting values in bw limits warning#268TomDonoghue merged 1 commit intomainfrom
TomDonoghue merged 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
voytek
approved these changes
Jun 29, 2023
Contributor
|
Oops! Glad it's not a code issue, just a warning issue. |
ryanhammonds
approved these changes
Jun 29, 2023
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It turns out in our bandwidth limits warning, the variables were flipped such that it printed out wrong.
For example, with a frequency resolution of 1, and a bandwidth limit of 0.5, the current code would print:
FOOOF WARNING: Lower-bound peak width limit is < or ~= the frequency resolution: 1.00 <= 0.50Which is unhelpfully wrong...
This PR fixes this, by switching the variables to report properly. From my checks, I think it is just the warning that prints out wrong - the actual checks of the values seem correct.
This responds to this issue as reported in #244