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

Add AutoTaylorDiff #99

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Nov 20, 2024
Merged

Add AutoTaylorDiff #99

merged 5 commits into from
Nov 20, 2024

Conversation

tansongchen
Copy link
Contributor

Checklist

  • Appropriate tests were added
  • Any code changes were done in a way that does not break public API
  • All documentation related to code changes were updated
  • The new code follows the
    contributor guidelines, in particular the SciML Style Guide and
    COLPRAC.
  • Any new documentation only uses public API

Additional context

Adding type AutoTaylorDiff, currently only have order as type parameter.

Copy link
Member

@avik-pal avik-pal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

also bump the minor version

src/dense.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/dense.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@tansongchen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Just fixed and bumped version

test/dense.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@tansongchen
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gdalle I'm a bit confused, how to fix this documentation error?

@gdalle
Copy link
Collaborator

gdalle commented Nov 19, 2024

You should include AutoTaylorDiff to the API reference by modifying this file:

Taylor mode:
```@docs
AutoGTPSA
```

@tansongchen tansongchen requested a review from gdalle November 20, 2024 01:32
@tansongchen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can I run the workflow again?

@gdalle
Copy link
Collaborator

gdalle commented Nov 20, 2024

See #100

@tansongchen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks! Since the error is unrelated, could you first merge this before solving the token issue, so that I can deal with SciML/NonlinearSolve.jl#507 ? I believe on the main branch the CI will work just fine. 😄

@gdalle
Copy link
Collaborator

gdalle commented Nov 20, 2024

I also think the CI will work, can you just do a vibe check and confirm that your tests should cover all the additional code, for lack of a codecov report?

@tansongchen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, I can confirm that all new code is covered (constructor function is called with both arg and without arg; mode is run). And I actually found an error in my previous commit: I added a remote = nothing in docs/make.jl for local testing but I forgot to remove that on push, which might be the reason for codecov failing. Could you run the CI again?

@tansongchen
Copy link
Contributor Author

I see, codecov is still not working, so indeed a permission problem

@tansongchen
Copy link
Contributor Author

If you don't have concerns other than the codecov, it's ready to merge?

@gdalle gdalle merged commit e3e2d1a into SciML:main Nov 20, 2024
5 checks 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.

4 participants