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

#1507 remove algebraic equation check #1510

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 14, 2021

Conversation

rtimms
Copy link
Contributor

@rtimms rtimms commented Jun 11, 2021

Description

Remove the check "each variable in the algebraic eqn keys must appear in the eqn"

Fixes #1507

Type of change

Please add a line in the relevant section of CHANGELOG.md to document the change (include PR #) - note reverse order of PR #s. If necessary, also add to the list of breaking changes.

  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Optimization (back-end change that speeds up the code)
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Key checklist:

  • No style issues: $ flake8
  • All tests pass: $ python run-tests.py --unit
  • The documentation builds: $ cd docs and then $ make clean; make html

You can run all three at once, using $ python run-tests.py --quick.

Further checks:

  • Code is commented, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • Tests added that prove fix is effective or that feature works

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 11, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #1510 (e133009) into develop (f6cb07a) will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1510      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    98.34%   98.40%   +0.05%     
===========================================
  Files          296      296              
  Lines        17149    17787     +638     
===========================================
+ Hits         16866    17504     +638     
  Misses         283      283              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...ollector/effective_resistance_current_collector.py 96.66% <ø> (ø)
...rrent_collector/quite_conductive_potential_pair.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
pybamm/models/base_model.py 99.22% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
pybamm/expression_tree/unary_operators.py 99.79% <0.00%> (-0.21%) ⬇️
pybamm/expression_tree/array.py 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
pybamm/expression_tree/scalar.py 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
pybamm/parameters/base_parameters.py 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
pybamm/expression_tree/binary_operators.py 99.78% <0.00%> (+0.12%) ⬆️
pybamm/solvers/base_solver.py 99.59% <0.00%> (+0.41%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f6cb07a...e133009. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@valentinsulzer valentinsulzer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cheers @rtimms . If you're feeling brave, there might be some hacks in the potential pair models that were done to pass this test and can now be reversed. No worries if not.

@rtimms rtimms merged commit d44f526 into develop Jun 14, 2021
@rtimms rtimms deleted the issue-1507-check_algebraic_equations branch June 14, 2021 13:09
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.

Voltage control when using "surface form"
2 participants