forked from skyfielders/python-skyfield
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Lisence correction #1
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
Open
Ady1998
wants to merge
1,351
commits into
Ady1998:master
Choose a base branch
from
skyfielders:master
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Conversation
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
073988c to
0bdb8c4
Compare
abbe0db to
fb6033f
Compare
3d90e55 to
c8de309
Compare
24f1276 to
4bcdecb
Compare
ebdc10f to
c8db673
Compare
3f4da05 to
28e290b
Compare
4cd3423 to
3a836ce
Compare
fb20473 to
c6ee7c8
Compare
This will make the example easier to cut and paste; fixes #715.
The fallback code that looks for the old undocumented attribute `rough_period` has been generating a confusing error message, because the documentation talks only about `step_days`. Fixes #715.
To prevent confusion, stop using the term ‘geocentric’ for the position passed to a lat/lon routine, since readers might confuse it with the idea of ‘geocentric latitude’ (which Skyfield doesn’t use); and make explicit in each of the methods that ‘geodetic’ coords are returned.
A question in #1048 led me to notice this oversight.
This will let external scripts do a ‘make sync’ to see how the web site would be updated after a change, without stranding the user at a ‘y/n’ prompt asking whether to actually push the changes out.
A bump from 3.7 to 3.8 might sound trivial, but it took at least a dozen attempts at tweaking `requirements.txt` before it worked out. Each time I had to start over from the beginning. Turns out? I needed to pin `pygments` to avoid massive changes to the documentation HTML, which I don’t have time to vet right now.
A recent issue alerted me to the fact that the test suite was not detecting Python deprecation warnings. Turning them on, alas, revealed that `astropy` and `pandas` were both triggering warnings on their own, killing the tests. Here we upgrade them to safe versions, then turn on deprecation warnings, hopefully permanently. (Also: so that the test script works in a minimal container, have it skip running git if git is not installed.)
To find the position of deflectors like the Sun and Jupiter, the
`.observe()` method uses its position’s `._ephemeris`, which is in turn
copied from the vector function’s `.ephemeris`. But I had forgotten to
record an `.ephemeris` for the new `jpllib.Stack`, so users saw:
File ".../skyfield/relativity.py", line 46, in add_deflection
deflector = ephemeris[name]
~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
Fixes #1063. Fixes #1066. Fixes #1068.
Gads, how did I wind up shipping such a huge test file with Skyfield? Irresponsible. Not sure what I was thinking. Apologies, everyone.
A slight gain in efficiency; it bothered me whenever I read the code.
Since I sometimes need the date of a conjunction to write a test.
This test will prove that the next diff, which rewrites the deflection logic, is a mere refectoring that keeps Skyfield’s behavior the same.
The choice of deflectors is stranded down inside of the ungainly add_deflection() routine. Instead of adding yet another parameter to a routine that already has too many parameters, let’s abandon the routine entirely, splitting its logic into smaller pieces that can then be called directly from the .apparent() method.
Quick workaround for #1084.
To reduce the expense of looking up a planet in an ephemeris, each ephemeris was doing a single scan of its `.segments` in `__init__()` and caching the resulting vector functions. But this meant that users could not usefully edit the `.segments` list — for example, to combine all the segments from two ephemeris files. So let’s do everything on-the-fly.
And, improve the exception raised if a deflector is missing.
Since `test-docs.sh` was intermittently finding an import loop while I was writing the previous commit, but only by chance, when it happened to run the documentation in some particular order.
9f836b1 to
d185fae
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
No description provided.