Re: [FORGE odepkg] Update, deprecation and FORTRAN warnings

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Roberto Porcù <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:50 AM, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 Mar 2014, at 11:29, Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Juan Pablo Carbajal
>>>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Mike Miller <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 01:00:48 +0100, Juan Pablo Carbajal wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Mike Miller <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 00:32:20 +0100, Juan Pablo Carbajal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I tried to import your patch and I get
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 28 out of 28 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/cash.diff.rej
>>>>>>>>> patching file src/daskr.diff
>>>>>>>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 0
>>>>>>>>> 1 out of 1 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/daskr.diff.rej
>>>>>>>>> abort: patch failed to apply
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am working with rev 31cb9aacfac5 tip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm, I am on the same revision, and I was just able to import the patch
>>>>>>>> again on that revision cleanly, I'm not sure why that doesn't work for
>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mercurial Distributed SCM (version 2.8.2+3-082b2930fe2c)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still not sure, but here are the cash.diff and daskr.diff files that you
>>>>>> should be able to drop directly into the src directory. Does this work
>>>>>> for you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> I created patches from your files and applied them... the files where
>>>>> quite different, but everything seems to work...so no questions asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> I pushed the changes, here odepkg compiles without warnings. I will
>>>>> proceed to compare with the SoCiS repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> @Mike: is there a diagnose log one could check to see why odepkg is
>>>>> crashing in PowerPC (?)
>>>>
>>>> @Carlo,
>>>>
>>>> I updated the SoCiS repository with the changes. I did not marge cause
>>>> I noticed that there are fewer functions tests than in the current OF
>>>> package. Do you know why is that?
>>>
>>> I also noticed that but I don't know the exact reason for that.
>>> I'm cc-ing Roberto so he can comment on this.
>>>
>>> Roberto, is there a reason why you reduced the number of tests?
>>> Even for those functions you have almost rewritten from scratch
>>> you could have kept most of the previous tests, what are the ones you
>>> removed? Did you find them obsolete or irrelevant? were they testing
>>> removed functionalities? were they using incompatible syntax?
>>>
>>>> I also see loads of changes in ode45.m which I do not understand. Did
>>>> they also edited this (and other older) functions?
>>>
>>> Yes, one of the objectives of the project was to unify the structure
>>> of the odexy solvers + odeset/odeget to make them easier to mantain,
>>> to change their interface to make it more matlab compatible and to
>>> eventually adapt them so they could be moved into core.
>>>
>>> Of this three tasks I think the firt is essentially complete, the second is
>>> partially done but the third still requires quite a bit of work.
>>>
>>> I asked Roberto to update the project description in the wiki to reflect
>>> this status, but I haven't checked if he did that yet, he seems to be
>>> very buisy with his PhD project at the moment.
>>>
>>>> It would be good if the students try to do the merge. I am
>>>> particularly concern for the missing tests.
>>>
>>> Yes, I am waiting for Roberto to be a bit less buisy with his PhD project
>>> so he can help with the merge.
>>>
>>> @JPi, anyway, if you can help with reviewing and merging the code
>>> your contribution is very welcome!
>>>
>>I am happy to help, but I need to read their intention. Again, some of
>>the change sin the old functions I do not grasp.
>>I will wait for their input.
>>
>>To make it clear, I have committed to their repositories with the
>>changes we have made on the OF repo. I tested and their package
>>compiles without the warnings and the tests do execute without failure
>>(though there are less tests ;) ).
>>
>>> c.
>
> Dear all,
> some tests are missing because not all functionalities requested by previous 
> tests had been implemented.
> As soon as I can I will update the wiki. As Carlo told I'm very busy with my 
> PhD activity.
>
> Roberto

In that case we will keep forward with the old OF package, since I see
no added value on losing functionality. Maybe we can include the new
functions and keep the ones working as they are?