WIP: check CI on Julia v1.11 pre-release version

github-actions[bot] commented 2 months ago

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

[ ] The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
[ ] All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
[ ] No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

[ ] The code can be understood easily.
[ ] Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
[ ] There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
[ ] There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
[ ] The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

[ ] New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
[ ] Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
[ ] Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
[ ] Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
[ ] If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md.

Testing

[ ] The PR passes all tests.
[ ] New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
[ ] New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

[ ] There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
[ ] If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

[ ] The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
[ ] If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results are posted in the PR.

Created with :heart: by the Trixi.jl community.

codecov[bot] commented 2 months ago

Codecov Report

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

Project coverage is 66.29%. Comparing base (b1a84a6) to head (a54a3e5).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1904 +/- ## =========================================== - Coverage 96.12% 66.29% -29.84% =========================================== Files 448 448 Lines 36081 36005 -76 =========================================== - Hits 34682 23866 -10816 - Misses 1399 12139 +10740 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/pull/1904/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=trixi-framework) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/pull/1904/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=trixi-framework) | `66.29% <ø> (-29.84%)` | :arrow_down: | 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=trixi-framework#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.

sloede commented 2 months ago

We get errors about overwritten methods, e.g., in the log here or here.

The problem seems to be multiple includes of the same function definition, e.g., when looping over setups (first case) or just reusing a setup with an explicit include (the second case).

Any idea how this can be easily fixed? For example, would it be possible (sensible) that we create a separate (anonymous?) Julia module upon each invocation of test_trixi_include?

sloede commented 2 months ago

Ah, I see that @ranocha had the idea of anonymous modules before, but that they do not work with our structured, curvilinear files 😢 https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/blob/b1a84a63298966b67491dacac78e785e0dbfb36c/test/test_trixi.jl#L205-L213 Any other ideas how to proceed?

ranocha commented 2 months ago

Let's just include warnings like

"WARNING: Method definition pretty_form_utf(Base.Val{:energy_potential}) in module TrixiTestModule at /home/runner/work/Trixi.jl/Trixi.jl/examples/paper_self_gravitating_gas_dynamics/elixir_eulergravity_jeans_instability.jl:121 overwritten in module TrixiTestModule on the same line (check for duplicate calls to `include`)

in the list of ignored warnings?

sloede commented 2 months ago

Let's just include warnings like

"WARNING: Method definition pretty_form_utf(Base.Val{:energy_potential}) in module TrixiTestModule at /home/runner/work/Trixi.jl/Trixi.jl/examples/paper_self_gravitating_gas_dynamics/elixir_eulergravity_jeans_instability.jl:121 overwritten in module TrixiTestModule on the same line (check for duplicate calls to `include`)

in the list of ignored warnings?

Won't we risk hiding real errors with this? But in general, I do like the idea due to its simplicity 👍

trixi-framework / Trixi.jl