Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on May 15, 2025. It is now read-only.

Add more tests to Alefeld and fix bugs #58

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 31, 2023
Merged

Conversation

huiyuxie
Copy link
Contributor

Here are some new things added to the repository:

  1. The early version of Alefeld is unable to pass the test when the interval [a, b] is such that either a or b is already a solution. To address this, a new build solution function has been added before the start of iteration.
  2. More tests have been added to verify Alefeld, and all tests have passed. The remaining failed cases appear to stem from basictests.jl, specifically lines 489 and 490(Batched Broyden).

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 30, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #58 (b663ad5) into main (e44bab2) will increase coverage by 0.12%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #58      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.51%   91.64%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          16       16              
  Lines         778      778              
==========================================
+ Hits          712      713       +1     
+ Misses         66       65       -1     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/alefeld.jl 85.22% <100.00%> (+1.13%) ⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas merged commit f4e1188 into SciML:main Mar 31, 2023
@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Oddly the merged version of your PR failed tests (https://github.com/SciML/SimpleNonlinearSolve.jl/actions/runs/4573566745/jobs/8074148400) even though CI was just fine in the PR. If you run master locally do you see these issues?

@ranocha ranocha mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2023
@huiyuxie
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just ran the code locally, and this time all the tests passed.
Screenshot 2023-03-31 at 9 42 52 AM

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Looks like it's good. I am not sure what I saw there.

@huiyuxie
Copy link
Contributor Author

huiyuxie commented Apr 4, 2023

I think issue #34 has been resolved. If you agree, could you please close it? Thank you:) @ChrisRackauckas

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants