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.

All of the changes look OK. Just have a query about some K-matrix code that is commented out. Otherwise this can be merged.

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

Changes look OK.

Code updated to address the first set of review comments.

• Edits for 1st review round for D100

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

This looks good to me. I only have a few minor comments, which you find below.

Here are the JSON test distributions for the EvtBcVPPHad and EvtPhiDalitz model updates, which includes some comparisons with tests done by the previous LHCb code review:

In D99#2612, @tlatham wrote:

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

• Updated FSR testing scripts: removed empty histograms, improved binning.

Changes look OK. This can be merged.

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?

All changes look plausible to me.