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

refactor: move type-pirated function from BoundaryValueDiffEq here, use Accessors.jl #696

Merged

Conversation

AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member

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

Add any other context about the problem here.

Copy link

codecov bot commented May 22, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 30.82%. Comparing base (9185795) to head (17a165c).

Files Patch % Lines
src/solutions/ode_solutions.jl 44.00% 14 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #696       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   41.53%   30.82%   -10.71%     
===========================================
  Files          55       55               
  Lines        4582     4577        -5     
===========================================
- Hits         1903     1411      -492     
- Misses       2679     3166      +487     

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

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Fix conflict?

@AayushSabharwal AayushSabharwal force-pushed the as/bv-diffeq-internals branch 3 times, most recently from 908c197 to d74e879 Compare May 26, 2024 16:43
@AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member Author

AayushSabharwal commented May 29, 2024

I'm looking into what is cancelling these tests

@test getp(sys, b)(sol) ≈ 100
@test sol.ps[a] ≈ 1
@test sol.ps[b] ≈ 100
sol = @test_throws ArgumentError solve(prob, GradientDescent())
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what's the error here?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Member Author

@AayushSabharwal AayushSabharwal Jun 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ERROR: ArgumentError: Fminbox(GradientDescent{LineSearches.InitialPrevious{Float64}, LineSearches.HagerZhang{Float64, Base.RefValue{Bool}}, Nothing, Optim.var"#13#15"}(LineSearches.InitialPrevious{Float64}
  alpha: Float64 1.0
  alphamin: Float64 0.0
  alphamax: Float64 Inf
, LineSearches.HagerZhang{Float64, Base.RefValue{Bool}}
  delta: Float64 0.1
  sigma: Float64 0.9
  alphamax: Float64 Inf
  rho: Float64 5.0
  epsilon: Float64 1.0e-6
  gamma: Float64 0.66
  linesearchmax: Int64 50
  psi3: Float64 0.1
  display: Int64 0
  mayterminate: Base.RefValue{Bool}
, nothing, Optim.var"#13#15"(), Flat())) requires gradients, since you didn't use `OptimizationFunction` with a valid AD backend https://docs.sciml.ai/Optimization/stable/API/ad/ the lower and upper bounds thus will be ignored.

I had messaged Vaibhav about it when it came up, not sure if he has been able to fix it yet.

Copy link
Member

@Vaibhavdixit02 Vaibhavdixit02 Jun 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It was fixed I have created a release for it now

@AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member Author

Requires SciML/RecursiveArrayTools.jl#384

@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas merged commit 8706b5c into SciML:master Jun 5, 2024
24 of 42 checks passed
@AayushSabharwal AayushSabharwal deleted the as/bv-diffeq-internals branch June 6, 2024 05:16
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