Boundary condition on trimming #204
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
I would second this option. |
|
@justinsalamon what do you think? |
|
Sounds like a reasonable solution to me (explicitly handling), given that for events with any non-zero duration this becomes a non-issue. |
|
Ok, done. Docs updated as well. |
|
Shall we merge this then? |
|
Not sure if it counts for anything.... but I took a quick peek at the changed files and it all LGTM. Thanks for addressing this. |
|
Looks like I dropped the ball on this, but at ~3 months it looks fine to me. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR fixes #203 by including observations which have end time coincident with the trimming start time.
I'm still not 100% sure this is completely correct. It works for @tomxi's example case, where there was a time=0, duration=0 observation being trimmed to start at 0. This should clearly be included.
However, if we have an observation
[2, 2+1)with a trim of[3, 10), the modified logic will allow it to pass through, when it probably shouldn't, since[2, 3) ∩ [3, 10) = {}. The ambiguity here comes from our special-case handling of duration-0 observations, which we treat as closed intervals to allow a (Nyquist-style) sampling interpretation.Perhaps we should explicitly handle this case, by only allowing the boundary condition
end_time >= trim_startif the observation duration is 0?