search

SciML / ADTypes.jl

Repository for automatic differentiation backend types
https://sciml.github.io/ADTypes.jl/
MIT License
36 stars 11 forks source link

CI improvements #60

Open ArnoStrouwen opened 1 month ago

ArnoStrouwen commented 1 month ago

Makes CI more uniform with rest of SciML. Removes testing for 1.6, since rest of SciML dropped support. Activates errors on deprecation. Not sure what to do with the tests in the legacy file, since these will now error.

codecov[bot] commented 1 month ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 2.56%. Comparing base (733a26a) to head (6a04e0f).

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #60 +/- ## =========================================== - Coverage 100.00% 2.56% -97.44% =========================================== Files 6 5 -1 Lines 65 39 -26 =========================================== - Hits 65 1 -64 - Misses 0 38 +38 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/SciML/ADTypes.jl/pull/60/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=SciML) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [docs](https://app.codecov.io/gh/SciML/ADTypes.jl/pull/60/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=SciML) | `2.56% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=SciML#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Vaibhavdixit02 commented 1 month ago

I think we want to allow the deprecation warnings to pass here. Otherwise, we'd need downstream breaking releases which isn't ideal

gdalle commented 1 month ago

There are packages outside of SciML which use ADTypes and want to preserve compatibility with 1.6. Removing it is not okay.

Why do you want to activate error on deprecation? We deprecated things on purpose in v1 to allow for a smooth transition

@ChrisRackauckas this is a disruptive PR, please don't merge until I'm okay with it