Proposed FAq doc updates #874
Conversation
TorkelE
force-pushed
the
proposed_faw_remake
branch
from
ebae997
to
f967bac
Compare
docs/src/faqs.md
Outdated
| @@ -28,33 +26,35 @@ observed(osys) | |||
| Let's solve the system and see how to index the solution using our symbolic | |||
| variables | |||
| ```@example faq1 | |||
| u0 = [rn.A => 1.0, rn.B => 2.0, rn.C => 0.0] | |||
| ps = [rn.k₊ => 1.0, rn.k₋ => 1.0] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Without this rewriting, running thsi example takes crazy (infinite? I have a feeling that we have completed docs with it recently, so might finish, never bothered waiting that long in the retests though, but I have waited a good bit) long times, see this issue: #886
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of changing our docs can you make an MTK level example and open issue there so this can get fixed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume the same issue occurs with ODESystems and is related to the new symbolic indexing stuff?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So right now I am trying to figure out what is going on enough that I can actually make an MTK level issue. Given that I have over 50 unfixed MTK issues right now, I don't feel very confident that this will be fixed anytime soon, unfortunately. It was not my intention to simply change the docs so that the issue can be ignored (hence I raised the Catalyst issue of a starter).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(The change is only proposed, showing that some type of update is required here and what that could be, it is not meant as a final suggestion how the doc should be)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did this issue ever get resolved?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, let's go with this version of the mappings then.
docs/src/faqs.md
Outdated
| ```@example faq1 | ||
| ```julia | ||
| sol[osys.C] | ||
| ``` | ||
| or | ||
| ```@example faq1 | ||
| ```julia | ||
| @unpack C = osys | ||
| sol[C] | ||
| ``` | ||
| To evaluate `C` at specific times and plot it we can just do | ||
| ```@example faq1 | ||
| ```julia | ||
| t = range(0.0, 10.0, length=101) | ||
| plot(t, sol(t, idxs = C), label = "C(t)", xlabel = "t") | ||
| ``` | ||
| If we want to get multiple variables we can just do | ||
| ```@example faq1 | ||
| ```julia | ||
| @unpack A, B = osys | ||
| sol(t, idxs = [A, B]) | ||
| ``` | ||
| Plotting multiple variables using the SciML plot recipe can be achieved | ||
| like | ||
| ```@example faq1 | ||
| ```julia | ||
| plot(sol; idxs = [A, B]) | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are these no longer dynamic?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was trying to reduce runtime, sorry it got confused.
If you are happy with the change above I can reenable these, but if not we will have to figure something else out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, if you reenable these I am fine to merge. I'd prefer we keep everything dynamic if we can.
TorkelE
force-pushed
the
proposed_faw_remake
branch
from
f967bac
to
44d539b
Compare
reuploaded due to a rebase issue