Skip to content

Documentation for LD matrix methods#3416

Open
apragsdale wants to merge 4 commits intotskit-dev:mainfrom
apragsdale:ld_matrix_docs
Open

Documentation for LD matrix methods#3416
apragsdale wants to merge 4 commits intotskit-dev:mainfrom
apragsdale:ld_matrix_docs

Conversation

@apragsdale
Copy link

See #3353.

This largely pulls material from an existing, open PR to complete minimal documentation for the LD matrix methods currently available in tskit. I've made edits for clarity from the original PR, and removed some material that is possibly confusing or more information than needed for a user.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 6, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.33%. Comparing base (0b606fa) to head (7e2b62a).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3416      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.92%   91.33%   -0.60%     
==========================================
  Files          37       37              
  Lines       32054    32054              
  Branches     5123     5123              
==========================================
- Hits        29465    29275     -190     
- Misses       2262     2451     +189     
- Partials      327      328       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
C 82.64% <ø> (ø)
c-python 77.56% <ø> (ø)
python-tests 96.53% <ø> (ø)
python-tests-no-jit ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components Coverage Δ
Python API 98.86% <ø> (ø)
Python C interface 91.20% <ø> (ø)
C library 88.82% <ø> (ø)
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Member

@jeromekelleher jeromekelleher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've had a quick read through and generally looks great. I've spotted a few typos and left a few take-it-or-leave-it comments.

I haven't thought through the details at all through, and I think it needs a careful review from @petrelharp for that.

@apragsdale
Copy link
Author

Thanks so much for the quick review, @jeromekelleher. I agree with your suggestions and will fix things up accordingly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants