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
Basic DAE Initialization #1037
Basic DAE Initialization #1037
Conversation
Needs a test. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1037 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 76.78% 57.93% -18.85%
===========================================
Files 94 95 +1
Lines 30571 30252 -319
===========================================
- Hits 23475 17528 -5947
- Misses 7096 12724 +5628
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Added some basic test. There is a failing test (non index 1 DAE), that means we know whats missing. I guess we need an interface to define what all is known to the user, and what all the user wants us to initialize |
That can come from the initialization method choice? |
@@ -382,6 +383,9 @@ function DiffEqBase.__init(prob::Union{DiffEqBase.AbstractODEProblem,DiffEqBase. | |||
isout,reeval_fsal, | |||
u_modified,opts,destats) | |||
if initialize_integrator | |||
if isdae |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
evaluate to see if initialization is required first? Or do that in initialize?
https://cse.cs.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/publications/SCE001495.pdf
Using NLsolve right now, I will try to remove that out