Add Aqua.jl testing

[sloede]

Aqua docs: https://juliatesting.github.io/Aqua.jl/dev/

[github-actions]

Review checklist

This 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

• The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• The code can be understood easily.
• Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md.

Testing

• The PR passes all tests.
• New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
  are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (7e22898) 96.11% compared to head (cc9bec0) 96.11%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1628   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.11%   96.11%           
=======================================
  Files         418      418           
  Lines       34247    34247           
=======================================
  Hits        32915    32915           
  Misses       1332     1332           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	96.11% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[sloede]

I am not 100% sure if we want or need this, but adding Aqua tests seemed like not such a big issue to add. Also, testing time is hardly affected (<1 min). There are a lot of imho false-positive method ambiguities. There's also a legit piracy warning, thanks to buccaneer-in-chief @jlchan. I added an exception such that tests pass, but we could also think about moving the relevant function to StartUpDG.

[jlchan]

I am not 100% sure if we want or need this, but adding Aqua tests seemed like not such a big issue to add. Also, testing time is hardly affected (<1 min). There are a lot of imho false-positive method ambiguities. There's also a legit piracy warning, thanks to buccaneer-in-chief @jlchan. I added an exception such that tests pass, but we could also think about moving the relevant function to StartUpDG.

I didn't add that function, but I'm happy to move it StartUpDG.jl. @ranocha, any thoughts?

[sloede]

I didn't add that function

err... I beg to differ, good sir! 🧐
https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/pull/1010/files#diff-9818bc7a206dbb756a2d8aed9f30baf2bd1cc2eaf9b115e667375da1b69e639bR347-R351

[jlchan]

Ohh right, I did add that function - the DGMulti solvers using SummationByPartsOperators.jl were super slow without it. I must have forgotten because @ranocha added the other SummationByPartsOperators.jl solver features.

IMO it doesn't make sense to move it to StartUpDG.jl without moving the rest of the specialization of RefElemData and MeshData from SummationsByPartsOperators.jl, but we can merge this first and open an issue. Any preference @sloede?

[sloede]

IMO it doesn't make sense to move it to StartUpDG.jl without moving the rest of the specialization of RefElemData and MeshData from SummationsByPartsOperators.jl, but we can merge this first and open an issue. Any preference @sloede?

I agree, opening an issue would be a good idea 👍 Can you do it, such that you know what would be to do?

[jlchan]

Wait, I'm a little confused - why is

Trixi.jl/src/solvers/dgmulti/sbp.jl

Lines 62 to 64 in 92dedde

	function StartUpDG.RefElemData(element_type::Line,
	D::AbstractDerivativeOperator;
	tol = 100 * eps())

not considered type piracy then? It's extending a StartUpDG.jl function to a SummationByPartsOperators.jl abstract type, neither of which is owned by Trixi.jl

[sloede]

Wait, I'm a little confused - why is

Trixi.jl/src/solvers/dgmulti/sbp.jl

Lines 62 to 64 in 92dedde

	function StartUpDG.RefElemData(element_type::Line,
	D::AbstractDerivativeOperator;
	tol = 100 * eps())

not considered type piracy then? It's extending a StartUpDG.jl function to a SummationByPartsOperators.jl abstract type, neither of which is owned by Trixi.jl

I believe that, yes, this too is 🏴‍☠️ and it's just that Aqua did not catch it 😅

[jlchan]

@sloede done #1639

Can you add Aqua exceptions for the other StartUpDG functions in https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/blob/92dedde81e12f8ac2259785a9eab40f475d82251/src/solvers/dgmulti/sbp.jl? The ones which commit type piracy should all be prefaced by function StartUpDG.__function_name__

[sloede]

@sloede done #1639

Thanks!

Can you add Aqua exceptions for the other StartUpDG functions

I don't think it is necessary, since all tests have passed so Aqua does not complain about the others.

[jlchan]

Can you add Aqua exceptions for the other StartUpDG functions

I don't think it is necessary, since all tests have passed so Aqua does not complain about the others.

Yes, but I was thinking that new versions of Aqua might not skip over these other pirated functions.

[sloede]

Can you add Aqua exceptions for the other StartUpDG functions

I don't think it is necessary, since all tests have passed so Aqua does not complain about the others.

Yes, but I was thinking that new versions of Aqua might not skip over these other pirated functions.

Then I would tackle them once the new Aqua version complains about them 🙂

[jlchan]

Sounds good. Thanks for adding this!