Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Variable type change in CFA does not rerun the analysis #5774

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025

Conversation

boutinb
Copy link
Contributor

@boutinb boutinb commented Jan 8, 2025

The Factors Form widget does not store the types of its variables in the options. So this information is lost. But this information is needed in the CFA analysis, since it is possible in this analysis to change the variable type. Also if you change the type, the analysis is not rerun.
This fix takes care of backward compatibility: a JASP file from 0.19.3 or older containg a CFA analysis (or a Regression Linear or Logistic Regression analysis that uses also a Factors Form widget) can be read.

The jaspTestModule has been updated to test also type change in Factors Form.

The FactorForms does not specify the types of its variables in the options.  So this information is lost. But this information is needed in the CFA analysis, since it is possible in this analysis to change the variable type.
Also if you change the type, the analysis is not rerun.
@boutinb boutinb requested a review from JorisGoosen January 8, 2025 15:27
@boutinb boutinb changed the title Add types in FactorsForm widget Variable type change in CFA does not rerun the analysis Jan 8, 2025
@boutinb boutinb requested a review from juliuspfadt January 8, 2025 15:28
Copy link
Contributor

@JorisGoosen JorisGoosen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Wouldve been nice if the Terms always have types so we dont need to do so many checks everywhere all the time

@boutinb boutinb merged commit 0c0167a into jasp-stats:development Jan 9, 2025
1 check passed
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.

3 participants