Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 92.00% and project coverage change: +0.01% 🎉

Comparison is base (290729a) 91.84% compared to head (9037834) 91.86%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #452      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.84%   91.86%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          60       60              
  Lines        4255     4300      +45     
==========================================
+ Hits         3908     3950      +42     
- Misses        347      350       +3     

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

Great, I've been hoping for this feature for so long!

Looks good. Two thoughts:

• you return ndarrays (of same size), and not df as Leo suggested, right? I'm fine with both, but better check with @leotrs . Maybe one of the reasons was that it's more easily plottable?
• when I read asdist I tend to think of "distance" rather than "distribution". Do you think ashist() could make sense?

Good call. There are definitely some discrepancies between what we decided in that issue vs. what I did. My biggest takeaways on what I need to fix are (1) call this ashist() instead of dist, (2) allow users to get bin edges as well as centers, and (3) return as Pandas instead of two numpy arrays. From looking back at that conversation, I think that implementing both hist and dist seems like overkill but there are some nice suggestions that I will spend some time incorporating.

@maximelucas @leotrs I think I addressed your comments - let me know if there's anything else I can address!

Thanks Nich, functionality looks good to me.

Two questions:

• it looks like only xgi.hist() is tested, should we also test say H.nodes.degree.ashist()?
• Unsure but might still need to be added to the docs?

Thanks Nich, functionality looks good to me.

Two questions:

• it looks like only xgi.hist() is tested, should we also test say H.nodes.degree.ashist()?
• Unsure but might still need to be added to the docs?

I opted to only test the xgi.hist function because the tests for the stats package are a bit of a mess right now IMO and the stats functions directly call xgi.hist() so all the functionality is tested. If it's okay with you, I will make an issue to reorganize the stats tests (we can discuss the best way to do this) so that it's more organized.

Good catch on the docs - fixed now.