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.

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

Questions about requiring currently optional packages (petsc, tribol, sundials) and testing them in CI #1221

Closed
chapman39 opened this issue Aug 22, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1239
Labels
CI Continuous Integration question Further information is requested TPL Third-party libraries

Comments

@chapman39
Copy link
Collaborator

This issue is a discussion place about optional packages (tribol, sundials, petsc, etc.).

  • Should we require Tribol? PETSc? Sundials?
  • Which optional packages should we test in CI?
  • Ideally we should test all combinations of optional packages enabled/ disabled, but this isn't feasible.
  • Requiring some more packages will reduce the amount of CI jobs required, since we won't have as many combination of options to cover.

Right now, we do not test the no-petsc case in CI, which lead to this issue for example #1217.

@chapman39 chapman39 added question Further information is requested CI Continuous Integration TPL Third-party libraries labels Aug 22, 2024
@tupek2
Copy link
Collaborator

tupek2 commented Sep 3, 2024

My vote: have a no-tribol build. Have a no_petsc and no_sundials build (together) there are sort of our TPL solvers, so its OK to test that things work when we have neither and that everything else also works when we have both.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CI Continuous Integration question Further information is requested TPL Third-party libraries
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants