-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix broadcast failure for VectorOfArray
with SVector{1}
#406
Conversation
Approval is required @ChrisRackauckas |
Yes it worked locally and I added it to the tests. But the CI seems need approval to be triggered. |
Thanks for checking! Lets be patient; Chris is very responsive to PRs and will approve the workflow, he just gets a ton of PRs/issues/messages between all the packages in the SciML ecosystem. |
Sure 👌 |
Looks like this gets a test failure. Look at LTS since the non-LTS inference failure has not been investigated. |
Thanks! Looks like my version doesn’t work for constant broadcasting. I’ll fix it tomorrow. |
@@ -905,7 +905,9 @@ for (type, N_expr) in [ | |||
else | |||
unpacked = unpack_voa(bc, i) | |||
arr_type = StaticArraysCore.similar_type(dest[:, i]) | |||
dest[:, i] = if length(unpacked) == 1 | |||
dest[:, i] = if length(unpacked) == 1 && length(dest[:, i]) == 1 | |||
arr_type(unpacked[1]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added one more condition to deal with our special case - it worked in my place please rerun CI @ChrisRackauckas
There might be room for improvement, but for now, I just need to make it pass all tests.
https://github.com/SciML/RecursiveArrayTools.jl/actions/runs/11562374105/job/32187348125?pr=406 |
Just to double check, does the same error show up on a “dummy” PR too? |
Yes before I ran this branch I also tested master branch forked from upstream master - it showed this error |
It just needed a rebase, and seems fine now on v1.10. I'll track down the inference issue separately. |
Fix #378.
The corner case was considered but was never included in tests, so the error was not caught during development.