Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

test CI on Julia v1.11 #1993

Draft
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

test CI on Julia v1.11 #1993

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

ranocha
Copy link
Member

@ranocha ranocha commented Jun 27, 2024 •
edited
Loading

We should investigate the failing tests. Having done so, we should decide whether to focus on Julia v1.11 (the newest) or stay mostly with Julia v1.10 (the long-time support release).

An argument for concentrating on the LTS is the performance regressions observed with 1.11, e.g., JuliaLang/julia#55009

Failing tests

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

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 with its PR number.

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
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 27, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.80%. Comparing base (480aea9) to head (72f3434).
Report is 14 commits behind head on main.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (480aea9) and HEAD (72f3434). Click for more details.

HEAD has 2 uploads less than BASE
Flag BASE (480aea9) HEAD (72f3434)
unittests 26 24
Additional details and impacted files 
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1993       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   96.34%   82.80%   -13.54%     
===========================================
  Files         470      477        +7     
  Lines       37497    37706      +209     
===========================================
- Hits        36125    31222     -4903     
- Misses       1372     6484     +5112
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 82.80% <ø> (-13.54%) ⬇️

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.

@ranocha
Copy link
Member Author

ranocha commented Jul 1, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Failing tests in previous versions

@ranocha ranocha changed the title test CI on Julia v1.11 release candidate test CI on Julia v1.11 Oct 9, 2024
@ranocha
Copy link
Member Author

ranocha commented Oct 10, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Update on the failing tests in the first post above

@bennibolm
Copy link
Contributor

Regarding the failing tests for subcell limiting. I would just update errors of the failing subcell limiting tests. Subcell limiting is expected to be very susceptible to small changes. This can happen even between different systems/architectures and also Julia versions, see this PR.
Moreover, both simulations look very stable in the sense of limiting deviations from the calculated subcell bounds (what was the problem in some cases in the past).

@ranocha
Copy link
Member Author

ranocha commented Oct 10, 2024

Sounds reasonable, thanks!

@ranocha ranocha mentioned this pull request Oct 10, 2024
Closed
@patrickersing
Copy link
Contributor

To fix the test unstructured_2d_dgsem/elixir_shallowwater_dirichlet.jl, I would suggest to soften the tolerance to atol=1e-10. We have done so already in TrixiSW, since the test is very sensitive.

@bennibolm bennibolm mentioned this pull request Oct 11, 2024
Merged
@bennibolm
Copy link
Contributor

@ranocha I created a PR within I updated the numbers for the two subcell tests that are currently failing. See #2107. Feel free to merge it.

@benegee
Copy link
Contributor

benegee commented Oct 15, 2024

I had a look at the advection diffusion problems.
All of them (elixir_advection_diffusion_*) show some slight deviations. Only one exceeds the tolerance, however.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
testing upstream
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@ranocha @bennibolm @patrickersing @benegee