In the process of making checking functions for the c transactions, I saw that, in the case of the sims I was looking for only one pixelGroup has a matrix that was not all 1s. That pixelGroup was 2 years old...Some checking of how these are assgined in the c++ function is required.
##### OVER MATURE DECLINE
### CAREFUL: names here are a little off from pixelGroups - they are in the same
### order, but not equal.
overmatDT <- matrixDT(matricesIn = processes$OvermatureDecline, indicesIn = c(1:length(processes$OvermatureDecline)))
overmatcheckProp <- checkProp(overmatDT)
# there is only one pixelGroup where the noLoss is not equal to 1
# overmatcheckProp[which(overmatcheckProp$noLoss != 1),]
# name row noLoss
# 1: 840 1 1.174843
# 2: 840 1 1.174843
# 3: 840 1 1.174843
# 4: 840 1 1.174843
# 5: 840 1 1.174843
# row number 840 is pixelGroup 841, and has an age of 2 - so it does not make sense
# check all the transactions
range(overmatDT$value)
# [1] 0.002914955 1.000000000
overmatDT[value != 1,]
# row 840 is the only one that has an over mature...but it is two years old.
## there is something wrong with how the overmature decline seems to be assigned
In the process of making checking functions for the c transactions, I saw that, in the case of the sims I was looking for only one pixelGroup has a matrix that was not all 1s. That pixelGroup was 2 years old...Some checking of how these are assgined in the c++ function is required.