Consider mapping the workflow over detector names
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
essnmx
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 1
- Forks
- 3
- Avg merge
- 2d 11h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 17
Description
We had a discussion in person that we will keep the for loop for now for easier writing/reading until we are sure that it's worth putting effort into using map-reduce here.
==============================
Consider doing this part with mapping the workflow over detector names?
Originally posted by @nvaytet in https://github.com/scipp/essnmx/pull/170#discussion_r2605964749
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No file, test, or entry point is named. Locate the existing workflow loop over detector names, review the linked discussion in PR #170, and establish the expected behavior and tests before deciding whether a mapping refactor is justified.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- data
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100