Hi @jback, just a quick note to explain the new changes.

• Updates to clang-format style for clang 16
• Modify clang-format style to 4-space indentation
• Fix missing newline in README
• Scripts to fix indentation of Doxygen comment blocks
• Further improve formatting style
• Re-apply formatting to source files

• Apply formatting in v3-patches branch

@jback, does this look ok? It's the same as the code we now have in #evtgen.

• Add warning if requested C++ standard is too old

Thanks John!

Thanks. @abudinen, I've tried to improve the clarity of the description following our discussion.

It looks like it is going to be a nightmare to merge timedep-branch into master if we apply this formatting first (even after applying the same formatting there first).
So what I'd propose is to merge the last actual code changes into master - will create the differential for that shortly - then create a new v3-patches branch, to which this formatting can then be applied, and release v3r6 from that branch. This Differential can be updated to accomplish that part.
The formatting can then be applied to master after merging in timedep-branch - will require a separate Differential at a later date.
Does that sound reasonable?

Thanks to D101, this is now in master but needs to also be propagated to the time-dependent branch, so not yet closing this.

Closed by rLAURA9dffea19ce7b
(not sure why this didn't happen automatically)

In parallel I need to check what happens if I apply the same formatting in the timedep branch and then try and merge the branches! If that doesn’t go so well we might have to postpone this change untill after merging timedep into master.

Since this is purely formatting changes, I think the main thing to review is that the formatting style looks reasonable and that the CI check looks ok. Up to you if you want to look through all the files!!

Remove unused member variable from LauKMatrixPropagator

Many thanks for checking through this. I’ve reply to your K-matrix related question inline.

It looks like the VUB_AC model isn't registered in EvtModelReg - should it be removed?

Just looking at this model to decide whether or not to remove it, as per T200.

Thanks for the updates @jback. I think it would be good to understand what's going on with the phi Dalitz angles. It looks like the variables are a bit different between what we're plotting and what they showed in their talk. One of their variables runs from -pi to pi, and it called phi, so it seems to be more of an azimuthal type angle. We should ask them for the exact definitions of each of those angles. Otherwise I'm happy.

@jback - just to provide you with a bit more context. This is the first of three Differentials that I would like to get merged before releasing v3r6 from the master branch:

• This one, which addresses T213, solving an issue with and generally improving the ROOT dictionary generation
• One that will address T111 by creating a clang-format style file, applying it to the code, and adding a corresponding CI check
• One that will address T227 by creating new functions in the fit models to access the amplitude and likelihood as a function of the DP position

Looks good now. I'll land D98 and then this one.

Fix typo in release notes

For the newly added code it would be good to have the member variables named with the m_ prefix.

Thanks for this @abudinen. Do we want to add some cases for hadronic final states?

Thanks @abudinen! @jback, @kreps, any comments? Or should I go ahead with this?

ok great, then this can go in, along with D94, I'll take care of landing them both tomorrow

Great, many thanks!

Thanks for adding the comment @lmassa. However, it looks like some other things have changed as well. See:
https://phab.hepforge.org/D94?vs=402&id=412#toc
Are those additional changes intentional?

Many thanks for this @abudinen. After the reviews by @jback and me on the CERN gitlab MR evtgen/evtgen!4, I think this is ready to go, unless @jback has any further comments, or @kreps would like to comment?

In D94#2535, @abudinen wrote:

It might be a good idea to add a comment in the code that the amplitude magnitudes are obtained from the mentioned BaBar paper but corrected for normalisation.

The plots look good, e.g. the m_ij^2 projections as per your slide 19:

Many thanks for this @lmassa and apologies for the delay in looking at it.