Closed WardBrian closed 1 year ago
I'm currently running this against https://github.com/stan-dev/stan/pull/3139
I am also going to run https://github.com/stan-dev/stan/pull/3139 against the binaries from this branch. If those tests all pass, I think we should merge both PRs.
If we don't want to go down this route we should revert #1241 and decide how to proceed.
@SteveBronder
Merging #1245 (bbbc93d) into master (d61d56c) will increase coverage by
0.02%
. The diff coverage is100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1245 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.95% 88.98% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 64 64
Lines 9710 9734 +24
==========================================
+ Hits 8638 8662 +24
Misses 1072 1072
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
src/stan_math_backend/Lower_program.ml | 99.06% <100.00%> (+0.07%) |
:arrow_up: |
This and https://github.com/stan-dev/stan/pull/3139 are now passing against each other. The merge order will need to be:
Merge https://github.com/stan-dev/stan/pull/3139, which will fail
Merge this, wait for build to upload nightly binary
Re-run stan-dev/stan
develop branch, will pass
Follow on to #1241.
As discussed in https://github.com/stan-dev/stan/pull/3139, updating an existing model_base method is sort of chicken-egg. This PR will fail as long as
stan
has the older definition of model_base, butstan
will fail as long as we're generating two ambiguous definitions in the models (not all of the Stan code that needs access to the model uses model_base as the interface, it seems)Submission Checklist
Release notes
Remove old version of
get_param_names
after #1241Copyright and Licensing
By submitting this pull request, the copyright holder is agreeing to license the submitted work under the BSD 3-clause license (https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause)