Skip to content

Conversation

@devmotion
Copy link
Member

Fixes #2001.

Both implementation and tests mimic the implementation and tests for LogNormal.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 30, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.36%. Comparing base (a1b8bb3) to head (edffde6).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2002      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.28%   86.36%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         146      146              
  Lines        8787     8791       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         7582     7592      +10     
+ Misses       1205     1199       -6     

☔ 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.

@devmotion devmotion requested a review from andreasnoack October 1, 2025 13:32
Copy link
Member

@andreasnoack andreasnoack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree that this is a natural consequence of supporting this case for Normal, which has proven to be quite convenient.

@devmotion devmotion merged commit ec86faf into master Oct 1, 2025
15 checks passed
@devmotion devmotion deleted the dw/logitnormal_zero_var branch October 1, 2025 18:20
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.

LogitNormal does not support zero variance

4 participants