Use eachindex instead of 1:length, compare against nothing with ===

[DanielDoehring]

Chris Rackauckas recommends eachindex over 1:length

[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.

[sloede]

LGTM!

Note that I know the reasoning behind the argument for eachindex, but that personally I am happy with the style we currently use, as it is IMHO clearer to reason about as a novice user and while debugging. Having said that, I wouldn't stand in the way of this being merged if you feel strongly about it 😊 (and I have been wrong about the virtues of generic programming in the past 🤷‍♂️)

[DanielDoehring]

Note that I know the reasoning behind the argument for eachindex, but that personally I am happy with the style we currently use, as it is IMHO clearer to reason about as a novice user and while debugging. Having said that, I wouldn't stand in the way of this being merged if you feel strongly about it 😊 (and I have been wrong about the virtues of generic programming in the past 🤷‍♂️)

No strong feelings involved, but I got somewhat annoyed by the tooltips and wanted to give this a shot.
Let's see if tests pass once OrdinaryDiffEq compiles again.

[sloede]

SciML/NonlinearSolve.jl#402 seems to have triggered a fix for the failing compilation - thanks @ranocha 🙏

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.30%. Comparing base (c025873) to head (acac1b7).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1899      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.54%   96.30%   +6.76%     
==========================================
  Files         448      448              
  Lines       36068    36079      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        32296    34745    +2449     
+ Misses       3772     1334    -2438     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	96.30% <100.00%> (+6.76%)	⬆️

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.