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

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

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.