Conversation
Review checklistThis checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging. Purpose and scope
Code quality
Documentation
Testing
Performance
Verification
Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1771 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.67% 96.23% +1.56%
==========================================
Files 436 436
Lines 35166 35188 +22
==========================================
+ Hits 33292 33862 +570
+ Misses 1874 1326 -548
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
This reverts commit f38059b.
|
@jlchan Could you please figure out the minimum version of StartUpDG.jl (or other dependencies) required to let tests pass? Currently, only the DGMulti tests fail, see https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/actions/runs/7177988031/job/19545377350?pr=1771#step:8:5324 |
Odd, the failures are with OrdinaryDiffEq.jl, StaticArrays.jl, and Static.jl. I'll try to figure out what broke, but it's not immediately clear. |
|
There is also |
|
@ranocha the issue with StartUpDG.jl is that I added the SummationByPartsOperators.jl extension in 0.17.7, so to get the FDSBP tests to pass, we need 0.17.7. |
|
Hopefully fixed the failures via f134e7a. Lets wait for CI. |
|
It looks like all commits after 8a81714 did not change the test failures |
|
It was working locally - but I didn't test the multi-threaded time integration... |
|
The CI failure seems to be related to LoopVectorization.jl and StrideArrays.jl. Maybe try bumping one of these two (even higher)? |
|
Feel free to go ahead with it. I don't have the bandwidth to do so this week. |
|
I gave it another try (see #1848) and found that JuliaSIMD/StrideArrays.jl#77 was the issue. Thus, bumping StrideArrays to v0.1.26 fixed the problem locally for me. |
Similar to SciML/SciMLBase.jl#553. The basic intention is to check whether our lower compat bounds are still accurate. This sounds like a good idea to me. I chose to just test threaded runs without coverage tracking since that's reasonably fast and covers a good amount of different aspects.
See https://github.com/cjdoris/julia-downgrade-compat-action