Closed schillic closed 1 year ago
This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 4125212071: | 0.0% |
Covered Lines: | 1 |
Relevant Lines: | 1761 |
WoW! quite a lot of damage for a docstring update! :rofl:
Just kiding it fails on main too. @lbenet do you remember off the top of your head if some feature depending on 1.9 was recently introduced? Otherwise I can try to have a look at this at some point (this is not related to this MR though)
relevant stacktrace
ERROR: LoadError: UndefVarError: RetAlloc not defined
Stacktrace:
[1] getproperty(x::Module, f::Symbol)
@ Base ./Base.jl:31
[2] top-level scope
@ ~/work/TaylorModels.jl/TaylorModels.jl/src/validatedODEs.jl:420
[3] include(mod::Module, _path::String)
The problems were introduced by merging https://github.com/JuliaDiff/TaylorSeries.jl/pull/312. TS was processing inconsistently the series of some functions for intervals, in the sense of not caring for the natural domain of the function. I started working on that, but got distracted. Sorry...
Given that the build failures are unrelated, is there anything you expect me to do here?
Regarding Taylor1Model
and TaylorNModel
, these were some structs defined during early essays, which have been left there; they do not allow the functionality that has been implemented for TaylorModel1
and TaylorModelN
. So, I don't think it is worth using them... Sorry for the very late response, I just noticed this.
Regarding the failure of the tests, as I mentioned it is related to https://github.com/JuliaDiff/TaylorSeries.jl/pull/312; it seems to me that the problem is the tests we implemented for TaylorModel1{TaylorN{T}}
. Again, I haven't had time to get into that, but I'll try to remedy soon.
Okay, then I close this PR.
Thanks... and sorry for the veeery late response...
No problem. Regarding the other problem, you have a branch that seems to work (#146). Maybe you can just merge that? :)
I was not sure how to describe
order_bounds
.