#92 - Generalize input of validated integ

[mforets]

Closes #92.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 661552514

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 53 (0.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• 669 unchanged lines in 10 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-56.5%) to 0.082%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
src/validatedODEs.jl	0	53	0.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
src/promotion.jl	1	0.0%
src/show.jl	13	0.0%
src/auxiliary.jl	29	0.0%
src/constructors.jl	29	0.0%
src/integration.jl	31	0.0%
src/evaluate.jl	40	0.0%
src/rpa_functions.jl	101	0.0%
src/arithmetic.jl	122	0.0%
src/validatedODEs.jl	148	0.0%
src/bounds.jl	155	0.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 640233573:	-56.5%
Covered Lines:	1
Relevant Lines:	1223

---

💛 - Coveralls

[mforets]

I've updated the title of the PR because the branch is still WIP: some additional arguments need to be passed to the initialization functions (eg. orderT) while for others such as the symmetric intreval box I think it's better to define it as a function, say symIbox(N) = ....

[mforets]

This is now ready for review. Tests pass locally (julia v1.5.2).

[lbenet]

Thanks a lot for addressing #92!

LGTM. Could you perhaps add some tests for the new method? (Maybe simply adapt the existing ones?)

[mforets]

for others such as the symmetric intreval box I think it's better to define it as a function, say symIbox(N) = ....

this could be defined in IntervalArithmetic.jl (see JuliaIntervals/IntervalArithmetic.jl#446)

[mforets]

Should we merge this? Or you'd like to add some further tests?

[lbenet]

I would prefer to have some tests... it always helps!

[mforets]

The last commit adds 2 new tests for the functionality of starting validated_integ with a vector of TMs.

Do you have some other dynamical system in mind to make a new test?

[lbenet]

LGTM! Thanks a lot!

[lbenet]

I'll merge it and release a new patch version. Thanks again!