{"push_id":1208811967,"size":1,"distinct_size":1,"ref":"refs/heads/mixed-effects-fitting","head":"26073daeae1ce4ef64c710bc64ccc1ac59db656c","before":"7ca4946d2e07c06817d911af01f3a691e9cb96fa","commits":[{"sha":"26073daeae1ce4ef64c710bc64ccc1ac59db656c","author":{"name":"Kevin Shi","email":"8d94bb1a5f08ae4f1ce68da76a77bdecb185c6fd@gmail.com"},"message":"Fix analytic model copies referencing same function handles\nWhen alternating calls to `m.Update` and `m.UpdateField` on different\ncopies off of some analytic model, the other copies have their fields and\nparameter values, respectively, changed to the updated models' values. I\nthink this is due to the model copies having function handles that point\nto the same underlying function/closure. Massaction models didn't have\nthis issue. Solution was to refactor `finalizeModelAnalytic`'s update\nfunctions to be like `finalizeModelMassAction`'s, where the `final` and\n`update*` subfunctions are not nested inside the main `finalizeModel*`\nfunction. Derivatives are held in structs by order for convenience instead\nof having to pass around the dozens of individual variables. Added unit\ntests to make sure the copies are independent.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/xpspectre/kroneckerbio/commits/26073daeae1ce4ef64c710bc64ccc1ac59db656c"}]}
{"actor":{"display_login":"xpspectre"}}