[wolljs] Reviewing exercise submission

[Jelitaw]

Links

Repository: https://github.com/Jelitaw/heat-equation-with-ai

Pull Request: Jelitaw/heat-equation-with-ai#1

Summary

This PR pushes an initial version of a 1D heat equation solver. The code, written in Python, reads a YAML configuration file, runs an explicit FTCS scheme, and writes the results to disk. The repository also includes documentation, a visualization script, and a pytest-based test suite.

I was able to run, validate, and visualize the solver successfully. The tests cover many different aspects (stability condition, shapes, boundary conditions, symmetry, I/O) and reported no errors.

What the AI tool did well

The AI-generated code is well structured and easy to follow. Especially the detailed documentation helps alot to understand exerything. The solver logic, config loading, CLI handling, and output writing are clearly separated. I also liked that some stability condition for the FTCS schemes are explicitly checked and that the project comes with tests and documentation right from the start.

Suggestions

Most suggestions are related to robustness and project setup:

• The script uses a hard-coded output filename/and folder, which makes it hard to reuse.
• Some additional defensive checks could and should be added when loading and validating configuration values.
• The documentation is clear but could be expanded with setup instructions and usage examples. The repo also makes no usage of the readme.md file.

---

Manual vs. Copilot review

VSCode Copilot was asked to give a review, while having full access to all files in the working space, including e.g. the output folder and the .venv folder which are not pushed to github.

Manual review

My manual review focused mainly on behavioral correctness and clarity, especially also of the comments and documentation. I checked whether the solver does the right thing numerically and whether the stability condition is enforced.
My main suggestion was to add more defensive programming around configuration handling and input validation, and to add/update some comments.

Copilot review

The Copilot review focused more on general software engineering aspects and polish. It pointed out missing project infrastructure such as a requirements.txt, LICENSE, and CI workflow, as well as issues with .gitignore (e.g. excluding .venv). It also highlighted practical problems in visualization.py, like hard-coded paths and missing file extensions. Overall, Copilot concentrated more on maintainability and best practices than on comments, readability/understandability of the code.

What I learned

Both reviews agree that failing fast and validating inputs explicitly is important. Automated reviews are very good at catching missing setup, hygiene, and best-practice issues quickly, but they did not suggest anything that would improve readability (Tho in general the code was very readable.).
Both added something that the other review missed, so in practice automated reviews should be used, but also supplemented by a human review.

---

Exercie Example

Pyiron has only fewextensive reviews, but most often they discuss a lot HOW something should be done after opening an issue, then it gets implemented and the pull request gets linked. In all the cases that I could find (looked throgh roughly 20 resolved issues at random), a review gets requested, but is normally just accepted with a comment like "lgtm".

This might mean, that the code is already so good, that nothing else could be improved in that request, or that the reviewers are not as nit-picky in expecting comments, defensive programming etc.

An example issue with the corresponding pull request:
pyiron/pyiron_base#1362
pyiron/pyiron_base#1369

So the most important thing that reviewers typically look for, is correctness.