Skip to content

fix: Ensure that setting upper limit works for toms748 scan#2564

Merged
matthewfeickert merged 5 commits intomainfrom
fix/upperLimitSetLevel
Apr 7, 2026
Merged

fix: Ensure that setting upper limit works for toms748 scan#2564
matthewfeickert merged 5 commits intomainfrom
fix/upperLimitSetLevel

Conversation

@kratsg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@kratsg kratsg commented Dec 11, 2024

Pull Request Description

Checklist Before Requesting Reviewer

  • Tests are passing
  • "WIP" removed from the title of the pull request
  • Selected an Assignee for the PR to be responsible for the log summary

Before Merging

For the PR Assignees:

  • Summarize commit messages into a comprehensive review of the PR
* Pass 'level' kwarg from the upper_limits.upper_limit through to toms748 scan.
* Add test to ensure that a different level being set is actually providing
  different limits.

@kratsg kratsg self-assigned this Dec 11, 2024
@kratsg kratsg added the fix A bug fix label Dec 11, 2024
@matthewfeickert
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

matthewfeickert commented Dec 11, 2024

Thanks @kratsg! I'll fixup the CI and review this this week.

@kratsg kratsg force-pushed the fix/upperLimitSetLevel branch from 47886dc to 98c6bd5 Compare April 2, 2026 16:27
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov bot commented Apr 2, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.27%. Comparing base (7de53ab) to head (92930f3).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2564   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.27%   98.27%           
=======================================
  Files          65       65           
  Lines        4289     4289           
  Branches      461      461           
=======================================
  Hits         4215     4215           
  Misses         46       46           
  Partials       28       28           
Flag Coverage Δ
contrib 98.15% <ø> (ø)
doctest 98.27% <ø> (ø)
unittests-3.10 96.45% <ø> (ø)
unittests-3.11 96.45% <ø> (ø)
unittests-3.12 96.45% <ø> (ø)
unittests-3.13 96.45% <ø> (ø)
unittests-3.9 96.52% <ø> (ø)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@matthewfeickert matthewfeickert force-pushed the fix/upperLimitSetLevel branch from 98c6bd5 to d8f5e6b Compare April 7, 2026 06:52
@matthewfeickert matthewfeickert changed the title fix: ensure that setting upper limit works for toms748 scan fix: Ensure that setting upper limit works for toms748 scan Apr 7, 2026
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to In progress in pyhf v0.8.0 Apr 7, 2026
@matthewfeickert matthewfeickert added the tests pytest label Apr 7, 2026
@matthewfeickert matthewfeickert merged commit 684224d into main Apr 7, 2026
25 of 26 checks passed
@matthewfeickert matthewfeickert deleted the fix/upperLimitSetLevel branch April 7, 2026 07:07
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In progress to Done in pyhf v0.8.0 Apr 7, 2026
@matthewfeickert
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks very much for this fix @kratsg, and apologies @GiacomoXT (and @kratsg) that this is something that got forgotten for a long time.

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

Labels

fix A bug fix tests pytest

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

pyhf.infer.intervals.upper_limits.upper_limit ignores the set confidence level when scan=None

2 participants