Added a separate package BayesianNeuralPDE.jl #920
Conversation
|
The CI failed showing some python distutils error |
|
@ChrisRackauckas The BayesianNeuralPDE part has been split into a separate package. Do I also need to make respective changes in the docs ? because the current documentation tests would likely fail on the CI while the others pass |
|
The tests that failed are based on documentation. Should I make changes to that too?? |
| @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ IntervalSets = "8197267c-284f-5f27-9208-e0e47529a953" | |||
| LinearAlgebra = "37e2e46d-f89d-539d-b4ee-838fcccc9c8e" | |||
| LogDensityProblems = "6fdf6af0-433a-55f7-b3ed-c6c6e0b8df7c" | |||
| Lux = "b2108857-7c20-44ae-9111-449ecde12c47" | |||
| OrdinaryDiffEq = "1dea7af3-3e70-54e6-95c3-0bf5283fa5ed" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because, when I precompiled NeuralPDE, it gave me an error saying this dependency is required for NeuralPDE but not found in its dependencies section
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting, it doesn't happen with me. Are you sure you are using NeuralPDE's env?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes. I have made all the changes in the same repository and Julia env
| @info "Running tests with $(RETESTITEMS_NWORKERS) workers and \ | ||
| $(RETESTITEMS_NWORKER_THREADS) threads for group $(GROUP)" | ||
|
|
||
| ReTestItems.runtests(NeuralPDE; tags = (GROUP == "all" ? nothing : [Symbol(GROUP)]), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this be BayesainNeuralPDE? Also, this might not be tested at all in CI. Look at how its done in OrdinaryDiffEq or some other where there are subpackages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you look at CI for ODEBPINN and PDEBPINN, no tests are run as it is removed from NeuralPDE. Idea is to run them whenever someone makes changes to the subpackage BayesianNeuralPDE. So you might need to make changes to CI.yml file in .github
|
@ParamThakkar123, since #921 was merged, can you rebase this branch and finish this PR? |
|
Sure |
|
Also @sathvikbhagavan would like to have any suggestions you might have for SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl#1159 That PR is also almost done except the few errors that occur. I have identified some cases of its occurrence but would like to hear any suggestions you have further to fix that |
Checklist
contributor guidelines, in particular the SciML Style Guide and
COLPRAC.
Additional context
Add any other context about the problem here.