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

Modify signature of evaluate for TaylorN's #247

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jan 12, 2021
Merged

Modify signature of evaluate for TaylorN's #247

merged 7 commits into from
Jan 12, 2021

Conversation

lbenet
Copy link
Member

@lbenet lbenet commented Jul 5, 2020

No description provided.

@lbenet lbenet mentioned this pull request Jul 5, 2020
Open
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jul 5, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+6.2%) to 94.118% when pulling d8ab586 on lb/iss242 into c05bb9b on master.

@lbenet
Copy link
Member Author

lbenet commented Jul 6, 2020

I hope to include some tests this afternoon...

dpsanders
dpsanders reviewed Jul 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
src/evaluate.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lbenet
Copy link
Member Author

lbenet commented Jul 8, 2020

@dpsanders I think this is ready for reviewing. I've checked that other packages (TaylorIntegration and TaylorModels) have their tests passing if this is merged.

cc @PerezHz

@lbenet
Copy link
Member Author

lbenet commented Jul 8, 2020

@dpsanders Sorry, forgot to add something to the docs... I'll ping you back

@lbenet lbenet linked an issue Jul 9, 2020 that may be closed by this pull request
Evaluate for TaylorN fails with ModelingToolkit #242
Open
@lbenet
Copy link
Member Author

lbenet commented Jul 9, 2020

I guess we should also bump a new (minor) version, though we can wait and also address #230, which would also be a breaking change.

@dpsanders
Copy link
Contributor

dpsanders commented Jul 9, 2020 via email

@lbenet
Copy link
Member Author

lbenet commented Jul 9, 2020

The differentiation part in #230 is not a problem; other cases (e.g. /) might be a bit more subtle.

@lbenet
Copy link
Member Author

lbenet commented Dec 15, 2020

Rebased to current master

@lbenet lbenet mentioned this pull request Jan 5, 2021
Closed
@lbenet
Remove broken tests
24190f7 
The removed  tests are  related to function-like evaluation, which
therefore implies using `sorting=true` in  `evaluate`
@lbenet
Copy link
Member Author

lbenet commented Jan 7, 2021

Minor changes so tests pass

@lbenet
Copy link
Member Author

lbenet commented Jan 11, 2021

@dpsanders I think this is ready for review.

While the core problem (NumberNotSeries) is not yet addressed here, this PR solves momentarily #242, so I think it should be merged. (I have begun the core problem.)

dpsanders
dpsanders reviewed Jan 11, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@dpsanders dpsanders left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't really follow the logic, but go ahead and merge if tests pass.

It seems strange to me that so much splatting is necessary.

src/evaluate.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/evaluate.jl Show resolved Hide resolved
@lbenet
Copy link
Member Author

lbenet commented Jan 12, 2021

Thanks for the review; I'm pushing a new commit and wait for the tests to pass before merging.

@lbenet
Copy link
Member Author

lbenet commented Jan 12, 2021

Merging.

@lbenet lbenet merged commit 216a9ac into master Jan 12, 2021
@lbenet lbenet deleted the lb/iss242 branch January 12, 2021 15:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@dpsanders dpsanders dpsanders left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Evaluate for TaylorN fails with ModelingToolkit
3 participants
@lbenet @coveralls @dpsanders