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

[Do Not Merge] Run Julia Base Tests #495

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

simeonschaub
Copy link
Collaborator

This is just to see what the current state here is, since I didn't feel
like running this on my Laptop.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 14, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #495 (6db9b70) into master (19757b4) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 6db9b70 differs from pull request most recent head 46a9483. Consider uploading reports for the commit 46a9483 to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #495   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   86.84%   86.84%           
=======================================
  Files          12       12           
  Lines        2342     2342           
=======================================
  Hits         2034     2034           
  Misses        308      308           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 19757b4...46a9483. Read the comment docs.

@simeonschaub simeonschaub force-pushed the sds/base_tests branch 2 times, most recently from 9d93436 to 4cf47ee Compare August 14, 2021 15:58
This is just to see what the current state here is, since I didn't feel
like running this on my Laptop.
@oxinabox
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe we could have a GHA that it linked only to manual (or schedule).
That runs and pushes results into a issue.

@simeonschaub
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes, that was my eventual goal, but lets see how this goes first.

@timholy
Copy link
Member

timholy commented Aug 14, 2021

In case a little more history helps, see #13

In case anyone is interested in investing in this package for the purpose of latency reduction, see:

Having sunk most of January-March of 2019 into this package, I then had to return to other duties and never really "came back." I do think there are some interesting possibilities, so I'm pretty jazzed to see people playing with this.

And #23 was a fun trip down memory lane!

@simeonschaub
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Can anyone see the actual logs?

@pfitzseb
Copy link
Member

Nope. Seems like something really breaks (or maybe there's just too much being printed?).

@simeonschaub
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I ran this on my machine and it eventually froze, so I suspect this might be an oversubscription issue.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants