Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

compiler: Hotfix unevaluation.Pow(1, ...) #2321

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 26, 2024
Merged

compiler: Hotfix unevaluation.Pow(1, ...) #2321

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 26, 2024

Conversation

FabioLuporini
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 26, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 86.67%. Comparing base (ccfb823) to head (774606b).

Files Patch % Lines
devito/symbolics/unevaluation.py 50.00% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2321      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.67%   86.67%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         229      229              
  Lines       43150    43153       +3     
  Branches     8001     8002       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits        37401    37402       +1     
- Misses       5053     5054       +1     
- Partials      696      697       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@mloubout
Copy link
Contributor

Uncontroversial

# such as `1**c`
return sympy.S.One
else:
return cls.__base__.__new__(cls, base, exp, evaluate=False, **kwargs)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you not want to pass the kwarg evaluate through here? It's currently not getting used

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No we want to force not to evaluate we do it in a bunch of place and it's easier like that to separate it from the kwargs

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mathias is correct

@FabioLuporini FabioLuporini merged commit edd6a2e into master Feb 26, 2024
31 checks passed
@FabioLuporini FabioLuporini deleted the hotfix-max branch February 26, 2024 16:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants