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

Backport #2719 to MTK v8 #2726

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 26, 2024
Merged

Conversation

devmotion
Copy link
Member

The PR backports #2719 to a MTK v8 on a new backport_8 branch. I can't use MTK v9 yet due to the incompatibility with Catalyst, so #2719 is not sufficient for my project.

@devmotion devmotion changed the title Forward system in ODEFunction expression Back #2719 to MTK v8 May 18, 2024
@devmotion devmotion changed the title Back #2719 to MTK v8 Backport #2719 to MTK v8 May 18, 2024
@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Format so tests run

@devmotion
Copy link
Member Author

I reformatted the code (which blows up the diff). It seems only a subset of CI is run on PRs that do not target the master branch - one problem with the existing version bounds for MTK v8 are the breaking changes in SymbolicUtils 1.6.0 (see e.g. https://github.com/SciML/ModelingToolkit.jl/actions/runs/9150353436/job/25155026031#step:6:1243) and the ADTypes changes (and some incorrect version bounds in NonlinearSolve it seems: https://github.com/SciML/ModelingToolkit.jl/actions/runs/9150353436/job/25155025675?pr=2726#step:6:1903). In my package that's not too problematic since I pin these packages anyway but generally that's annoying for users.

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

@thazhemadam do you know how to make this run?

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Can we just bound SymbolicUtils?

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Limit SymbolicIndexingInterface as well?

@devmotion
Copy link
Member Author

devmotion commented May 21, 2024

Why? Most (all?) problems seem to be caused by ADTypes e.g. https://github.com/SciML/ModelingToolkit.jl/actions/runs/9159389647/job/25179664915?pr=2726#step:6:1826

@gdalle
Copy link

gdalle commented May 22, 2024

The problem here is indeed a package that claimed ADTypes v1 support without ensuring it, namely OptimizationBase. This bug was introduced in OptimizationBase v0.0.6 and only fixed in OptimizationBase v1.0.1, so if we want to amend the general registry we should remove ADTypes v1 compat in OptimizationBase v0.0.6, v0.0.7 and v1.0.0

Cross-ref:

Ping @Vaibhavdixit02

@Vaibhavdixit02
Copy link
Member

Yeah we can do that, I am not sure how it can be changed in the registry though. Can it just be bounded to v1.0.1 here?

@gdalle
Copy link

gdalle commented May 22, 2024

One option is to yank those versions, aka get rid of them completely. That's what I did in JuliaRegistries/General#107391

https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General?tab=readme-ov-file#when-is-yanking-a-release-appropriate

But I'm not sure it is necessary if you tag a v0.0.8 patch release removing the faulty compat entry?

@gdalle
Copy link

gdalle commented May 22, 2024

Let's discuss on the General PR JuliaRegistries/General#107391

@devmotion
Copy link
Member Author

@gdalle Tests still fail due to ADTypes it seems.

@gdalle
Copy link

gdalle commented May 23, 2024

It's installing OptimizationBase v0.0.7, which I thought I had yanked?

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

The package servers can take awhile to get the updated registries.

@devmotion devmotion closed this May 24, 2024
@devmotion devmotion reopened this May 24, 2024
@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

r

@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas merged commit de8daf3 into backport_8 May 26, 2024
80 of 100 checks passed
@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas deleted the dw/backport_odefunctionexpr branch May 26, 2024 13:50
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