@lellid, I simplified your implementations in a lmfit-like way. The lmfit-like implementation produce compatible results with your implementations. These results are not compatible with the once from lmfit library. Could you please have a look and fix the problems? There is a notebook that illustrates the problem. For pearson4 it seems like w and sigma parameters are different but in some places their usage is mixed. Please make sure you call the variables with their names.
w might mean sigma, FWHM, HWHF and makes the code unclear. I suspect this as possible cause for the discrepancies in the results.

Please provide transformation to "standard" parameters -- those available from lm-fit

@vedina Are we going to drop this one?

lets' this stay, as it is a valid PR per se

Coverage report

Click to see where and how coverage changed

File	Statements	Missing	Coverage	Coverage (new stmts)	Lines missing
src/ramanchada2/fitting_functions
models.py
models_lmfit_like.py					1-70
pearson4_hpw.py					1-159
pearsonivamplitudeparametrizationhpw.py					62, 205, 294, 541, 545
voigt_nu.py					1-143
voigtareaparametrizationnu.py					87, 222, 226-228, 288-290, 301, 303, 310-312, 316-318, 358, 365-367, 422-423, 581
src/ramanchada2/spectrum/peaks
find_peaks_ByIncrementalPeakAddition.py					12-15, 17-20, 22, 27, 29, 37-43, 124, 144, 179-186, 190
tests/fitting_functions
test_pearsonivamplitudeparametrizationhpw.py
test_voigtareaparametrizationnu.py
tests/spectrum/peaks
test_PeakFittingByIncrementalPeakAddition.py
Project Total

This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action