Fix bug causing slices with depth > 1 to be forward-prop'd

[caleb-johnson]

Fixes #60

[caleb-johnson]

This is a bit tangential, but in adjusting the unit tests I realized this line should maybe be >=? We should be able to use 100% of the budget -- not strictly less, right?

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 13681086388

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 2 of 2 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 100.0%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 13182974064:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	432
Relevant Lines:	432

---

💛 - Coveralls

[BryceFuller]

This is a bit tangential, but in adjusting the unit tests I realized this line should maybe be >=? We should be able to use 100% of the budget -- not strictly less, right?

I agree, it should be >= . While double checking, I also noticed that the condition of the while loop checks equality between two floats with !=, that should be using np.isclose()

[BryceFuller]

These look good

[mrossinek]

Just some minor comments, other than that, this LGTM 👍

[caleb-johnson]

@mrossinek I'll just cast to list here and reverse it. That way I can get its length for logger

[mrossinek]

I guess that is fine. Although I think it would have been fine if the logger counted forwards

[caleb-johnson]

Well reversed cant act on a generator, so it was going to need to be cast either way in order to iterate backwards (as far as I can tell, at least). We can adjust the logger before release if you want it to behave differently

[mrossinek]

I was thinking we could do:

enumerate(reversed(...))

But as I said, it is not a big deal 👍