Eko 0.12 compatibility

[andreab1997]

Here we should fix what is needed to make pineko work with the new eko implementation (in particular with the develop version). @felixhekhorn @alecandido

• restore EKO dep to semver

[alecandido]

I would say just try to run, and you will find broken things. Hopefully not that many.

In particular, you can learn how to use the new methods from the EKO unit tests. In particular, an EKO is now opened with EKO.open(..., "r"/"w"/"a"), or one of the aliases EKO.read(...)/EKO.write(...)/EKO.edit(...).

[andreab1997]

I would say just try to run, and you will find broken things. Hopefully not that many.

In particular, you can learn how to use the new methods from the EKO unit tests. In particular, an EKO is now opened with EKO.open(..., "r"/"w"/"a"), or one of the aliases EKO.read(...)/EKO.write(...)/EKO.edit(...).

Ok so as far as I understood I don't need anymore the legacy part: EKO will take care of loading the legacy ekos automatically if needed.

[alecandido]

Ok so as far as I understood I don't need anymore the legacy part: EKO will take care of loading the legacy ekos automatically if needed.

Not really, from that point of view nothing should have changed...

[alecandido]

I temporarily moved the EKO dependency from the usual semver one to Git, such that unit tests are meaningful, please remember to restore the usual before merging.

[alecandido]

Here there is a good point where to start from:
https://github.com/NNPDF/pineko/actions/runs/3911199573/jobs/6684311767#step:10:13

[andreab1997]

Wait but I don't understand why that is blocking this PR

Because we do not want to depend on a Git branch, it is not reproducible: develop is not a fixed point in time, is a moving target. If you release this, and at a later stage we fix a bug in EKO, you will never be able to reproduce your results.

EKO is just missing tests, and without them is not fully reliable. If anyone is blocked because of that, it should consider contributing to testing EKO.

Nono I understand. But I don't want to realease this, just merge to main

[alecandido]

Nono I understand. But I don't want to realease this, just merge to main

In principle that might be fine, however this means that we will not be able to make any other release.
So, if we are still using somewhere the older version of EKO, we should not merge immediately this. Moreover, this branch should not be used to produce immediately results, for as long as we are not confident that EKO is alright.
And we already know it is not, since @felixhekhorn already found a bug, so we should at least wait for NNPDF/eko#199

TL;DR: we need this branch, but we need more an EKO tested release -> this sets the priorities

[andreab1997]

Nono I understand. But I don't want to realease this, just merge to main

In principle that might be fine, however this means that we will not be able to make any other release. So, if we are still using somewhere the older version of EKO, we should not merge immediately this. Moreover, this branch should not be used to produce immediately results, for as long as we are not confident that EKO is alright. And we already know it is not, since @felixhekhorn already found a bug, so we should at least wait for NNPDF/eko#199

TL;DR: we need this branch, but we need more an EKO tested release -> this sets the priorities

Ok I agree. Then, since I cannot compute stuff as long as eko is not tested, I will help in testing it :)

[andreab1997]

Ok now that the tests are succeding and the dependecy to eko has been restored, can we merge this?

[andreab1997]

Ok nevermind, it seems that in eko something else is changed and the tests are failing again...

[alecandido]

Ok nevermind, it seems that in eko something else is changed and the tests are failing again...

The problem is clearly with polarized

[alecandido]

I would revert 72f6cf9: notice that tests were actually passing before, so they have been broken by it.

The problem was only in the benchmarks, and just concerning polarized.

[andreab1997]

Details

No, note that the tests are still passing, the problem is the usual with codecov

[alecandido]

No, note that the tests are still passing, the problem is the usual with codecov

Ok, then I change my statement: that commit simply didn't change the status. Benchmarks are still failing because of polarized

[andreab1997]

No, note that the tests are still passing, the problem is the usual with codecov

Ok, then I change my statement: that commit simply didn't change the status. Benchmarks are still failing because of polarized

I know, I fixed it now :) (without making other commits, I am a wizard ;) )

[alecandido]

There is one comment from @giacomomagni still open https://github.com/NNPDF/pineko/pull/73/files#r1073591854.

After that, I believe we can just merge.

[andreab1997]

There is one comment from @giacomomagni still open https://github.com/NNPDF/pineko/pull/73/files#r1073591854.

After that, I believe we can just merge.

For that I don't know the answer. You guys know?

[alecandido]

The only drawback of this PR is that it is bigger than I would have liked. But I'm fine with merging and keep going.

[andreab1997]

@felixhekhorn @giacomomagni Do you agree that we can merge?