Add stats / destats field to everything

[avik-pal]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #391 (af77689) into master (c2bb35d) will decrease coverage by 4.63%.
The diff coverage is 84.21%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #391      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   52.25%   47.62%   -4.63%     
==========================================
  Files          46       46              
  Lines        3554     3582      +28     
==========================================
- Hits         1857     1706     -151     
- Misses       1697     1876     +179     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/solutions/optimization_solutions.jl	41.30% <ø> (-13.05%)	⬇️
src/solutions/pde_solutions.jl	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/solutions/nonlinear_solutions.jl	38.46% <50.00%> (-23.08%)	⬇️
src/solutions/rode_solutions.jl	53.24% <72.72%> (-13.42%)	⬇️
src/solutions/dae_solutions.jl	33.33% <90.90%> (+13.76%)	⬆️
src/solutions/ode_solutions.jl	88.98% <90.90%> (-5.41%)	⬇️
src/integrator_interface.jl	40.19% <100.00%> (-7.19%)	⬇️
src/solutions/basic_solutions.jl	65.21% <100.00%> (-13.05%)	⬇️
src/problems/sdde_problems.jl	0.00% <0.00%> (-60.00%)	⬇️
src/function_wrappers.jl	44.44% <0.00%> (-29.24%)	⬇️
... and 21 more

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[ChrisRackauckas]

can we just do this to all now?

[avik-pal]

can we just do this to all now?

Done

[avik-pal]

The DelayDiffEq failure seems unrelated

[ChrisRackauckas]

@YingboMa should we just destats -> stats with a deprecation path in the getproperty?

[avik-pal]

@YingboMa bump

[YingboMa]

Still need the destats -> stats depreciation

[avik-pal]

Still need the destats -> stats depreciation

I bumped it to confirm if we wanted the deprecation. Will do that.

[avik-pal]

The test_nowarn & test_warn tests really dislike this change 😢

[ChrisRackauckas]

Let's make sure the ArrayInterface stuff is more done before breaking some tests again with this 😅 . Other than that, I think this is good to go.

[ChrisRackauckas]

Is downstream all set?

[avik-pal]

Let's not merge it yet. I will run some of the final tests today and confirm.

…

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023, 3:33 AM Christopher Rackauckas < ***@***.***> wrote: Is downstream all set? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#391 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHJF57TCVQM5KWE5FNCLLZTW2BLONANCNFSM6AAAAAAU5A3QR4> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[avik-pal]

The interface tests for ODE.jl are working locally & (Stochastic)DelayDiffEq.jl is also working. We should be good to go.

[nathanaelbosch]

This change broke ProbNumDiffEq.jl:
https://github.com/nathanaelbosch/ProbNumDiffEq.jl/actions/runs/4385007371/jobs/7677180411

By which I don't really mean to criticise, I'm not familiar enough with the API though to know if that's semver problem, I might also just be too reckless in ProbNumDiffEq.jl. I'm mostly wondering: Would it make sense to also add ProbNumDiffEq.jl to the integration tests to catch this stuff earlier? (maybe @ChrisRackauckas)

EDIT: Actually I'm not sure where the issue is exactly, locally OrdinaryDiffEq.jl is the thing that fails, but I didn't have a thorough look yet.

[ChrisRackauckas]

Everything should have a deprecation path? Let me know if there are still any missing, but I think I caught them all by now.