Closed simsurace closed 6 months ago
Attention: 16 lines
in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Comparison is base (
3b7a2df
) 90.34% compared to head (774ac73
) 67.81%.
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
src/chainrules.jl | 80.95% | 16 Missing :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Ok, I added ChainRulesTestUtils tests for normal and static arrays. The static case is certainly not optimal, but I don't have the capacity to think of how to rewrite the rules to be non-mutating.
If anyone knows off-hand how to do this, feel free to make a suggestion.
@willtebbutt Could we merge this? The comment regarding the generality of the rule does not I apply (I believe) because of the concrete type of the field of Sinus
. The failures are unrelated, see #526.
I have no objection to merging. @devmotion do you have thoughts?
This PR reactivates the AD tests for the periodic kernel and introduces
rrules
to make them pass. Fixes #527