Skip to content

Conversation

@ranocha
Copy link
Member

@ranocha ranocha commented Apr 1, 2025

I updated the URL accordingly. I also bumped the version number so that we can check the registration process.

I also relaxed the work-precision time tests since they failed sometimes, e.g., in https://github.com/NumericalMathematics/PositiveIntegrators.jl/actions/runs/14188778930/job/39748822294#step:6:848. I have seen this a few times before and it is annoying to have to restart the CI jobs just because of this.

@ranocha ranocha requested a review from SKopecz April 1, 2025 06:42
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 1, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

@SKopecz
Copy link
Collaborator

SKopecz commented Apr 1, 2025

There is one work_precision test failing on MacOS.

work-precision fixed: Test Failed at /Users/runner/work/PositiveIntegrators.jl/PositiveIntegrators.jl/test/runtests.jl:2594
  Expression: maximum((v .- m1) ./ m1) < 2.5
   Evaluated: 8.10910718891217 < 2.5

If I recall correctly, we had issues with work_precision tests on MacOS before, and only on MacOS. The whole point of these tests is to ensure that two work_precision runs create more or less the same diagram. I don't think we should increase the relative tolerance any further in general.

I see two possibilities:

  1. We increase the relative tolerance to about 10 for MacOS systems and decrease the tolerance again for all other systems. Then we know that everything works in general and consider this to be a MacOS issue.

  2. We could play with the settings inside work_precision. For instance, we could see if increasing numruns helps. But I tried this in the past and it didn't have the desired effect.

So I would vote for Option 1.

Copy link
Collaborator

@SKopecz SKopecz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! Please see #156 (comment).

@ranocha ranocha requested a review from SKopecz April 1, 2025 10:11
@ranocha
Copy link
Member Author

ranocha commented Apr 1, 2025

Good point. I made a change as suggested in the last commit.

Copy link
Collaborator

@SKopecz SKopecz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks a lot!

Copy link
Member

@JoshuaLampert JoshuaLampert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@JoshuaLampert JoshuaLampert merged commit 28ca213 into main Apr 2, 2025
10 checks passed
@JoshuaLampert JoshuaLampert deleted the hr/repository_transfer branch April 2, 2025 20:27
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