Opened 10 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#39 closed defect (fixed)
Order of calls to addResonance and setAmpCoeffSet assumed to match but not checked
| Reported by: | Thomas Latham | Owned by: | Thomas Latham |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | v3r1 |
| Version: | Keywords: | ||
| Cc: |
Description
While there are checks that the resonance named in each coeff set is present in the isobar model it is not checked that the order matches, it is just assumed. This should be checked or the order should be rearranged to match one or the other. This affects all fit models.
Change History (3)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
| Milestone: | → v3r1 |
|---|
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
(In [299]) fix #39 - a bug that meant the order of resonances in LauIsobarDynamics was assumed to match with the order in which the complex coefficients are supplied to the fit model
- The ordering of resonances is defined by LauIsobarDynamics:
- Firstly all coherent resonances in order of addition
- Followed by all incoherent resonances in order of addition
- The complex coefficients are now rearranged to match that order
- Printout of the model summary at the end of initialisation has been enhanced to indicate the ordering
- Doxygen updated to reflect these changes
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
This situation has been exacerbated by the addition of the incoherent resonances since there is currently the requirement that these are added after all coherent ones. So this also needs to be resolved. Ideally there should be no ordering dependence for any of these things.