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

Standardize the Extension Algorithms #341

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Dec 25, 2023
Merged

Standardize the Extension Algorithms #341

merged 7 commits into from
Dec 25, 2023

Conversation

avik-pal
Copy link
Member

@avik-pal avik-pal commented Dec 24, 2023

Checklist

  • Standardized Kwargs
  • Forward the tracing kwargs and deprecate the ones in the Solver Kwargs
  • Use Jacobian Handling via jacobian!! in FastLM

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 24, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: 45 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (fa16796) 88.04% compared to head (bfaf014) 87.47%.

Files Patch % Lines
src/function_wrappers.jl 72.34% 26 Missing ⚠️
ext/NonlinearSolveSIAMFANLEquationsExt.jl 72.91% 13 Missing ⚠️
src/extension_algs.jl 76.19% 5 Missing ⚠️
ext/NonlinearSolveNLsolveExt.jl 92.30% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #341      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.04%   87.47%   -0.57%     
==========================================
  Files          27       28       +1     
  Lines        2174     2172       -2     
==========================================
- Hits         1914     1900      -14     
- Misses        260      272      +12     

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

@avik-pal avik-pal marked this pull request as ready for review December 24, 2023 19:14
Comment on lines -22 to -26
function (u)
du = similar(u)
prob.f(du, u, prob.p)
return du
end
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This shouldn't originate in the first place.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, the scalar case root finding doesn't need this

@avik-pal avik-pal requested a review from ErikQQY December 24, 2023 19:37
@avik-pal avik-pal force-pushed the ap/fastlm_jac branch 2 times, most recently from d3131c9 to fd08605 Compare December 24, 2023 19:56
@avik-pal avik-pal marked this pull request as draft December 24, 2023 20:26
@avik-pal avik-pal marked this pull request as ready for review December 25, 2023 01:48
docs/src/basics/solve.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/src/basics/solve.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ isinplace(JᵀJ::KrylovJᵀJ) = isinplace(JᵀJ.Jᵀ)

# Select if we are going to use sparse differentiation or not
sparsity_detection_alg(_, _) = NoSparsityDetection()
function sparsity_detection_alg(f, ad::AbstractSparseADType)
function sparsity_detection_alg(f::NonlinearFunction, ad::AbstractSparseADType)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this need to specialize?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

safety measure, we are using f.sparsity and stuff in there.

Copy link
Member

@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I didn't go through all the details but it seems generally in the right direction with all of it.

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Are the 23 test problem failures known?

@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas merged commit 4312353 into master Dec 25, 2023
18 of 23 checks passed
@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas deleted the ap/fastlm_jac branch December 25, 2023 15:22
@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

I presume that's what was fixed in the problem library, so it should have passed?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants