Skip to content
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

Update tests #15360

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Jun 16, 2023
Merged

Update tests #15360

merged 3 commits into from Jun 16, 2023

Conversation

drwells
Copy link
Member

@drwells drwells commented Jun 14, 2023

We have a bunch of tests which fail for trivial reasons - I fixed a bunch here.

@@ -47,7 +47,8 @@ test()
}
catch (ExceptionBase &e)
{
deallog << e.what() << std::endl;
deallog << "Successfully failed to distribute DoFs with a single "
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"successfully failed" :-)

tests/hp/non_hp_mode.cc Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines -59 to +62
entries.emplace_back(rand() % 10, rand() % 100);
{
const auto row = Testing::rand() % 10;
const auto col = Testing::rand() % 100;
entries.emplace_back(row, col);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It took me a minute to see the difference -- nice catch!

@stefanozampini
Copy link
Contributor

@drwells You will need to add your changes to the new tests I have here #15276 too.

1. Be more careful about sequence points
2. Use Testing::rand()
For some reason this doesn't work in debug mode. When we require C++17
we can use proper inline constexpr variables so its not worth bothering
with a proper fix.
@drwells
Copy link
Member Author

drwells commented Jun 15, 2023

The PETSc TS tests now fail to run for me (I'm using a recent development copy of PETSc). For now I just removed them from this PR.

@stefanozampini
Copy link
Contributor

stefanozampini commented Jun 15, 2023

The PETSc TS tests now fail to run for me (I'm using a recent development copy of PETSc). For now I just removed them from this PR.

What do you mean fail to run? It could be good to know why they are failing

@drwells
Copy link
Member Author

drwells commented Jun 15, 2023

For petsc_ts_04.debug I now see

11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.100000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.100000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.100000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.100000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.200000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.200000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.200000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.200000
11599: DEAL::Intermediate output:
11599: DEAL::  t =0.200000
11599: DEAL::  y =0.823864  (exact: 0.818731)
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.400000
11599: DEAL::Time step too large: last_eval_time=0.200000, t=0.400000
11599: 
11599: petsc/petsc_ts_04.debug: RUN failed. ------ Additional output on stdout/stderr:
11599: 
11599: 
11599: 
11599: petsc/petsc_ts_04.debug: ******    RUN failed    *******
11599: 
11599: ===============================    OUTPUT END   ===============================
11599: Expected stage PASSED - aborting
11599: CMake Error at /not_backed_up/drwells/Documents/Code/CPP/dealii/build/share/deal.II/scripts/run_test.cmake:116 (message):
11599:   *** abort

@stefanozampini
Copy link
Contributor

For petsc_ts_04.debug I now see

11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.100000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.100000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.100000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.100000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.200000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.200000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.200000
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.200000
11599: DEAL::Intermediate output:
11599: DEAL::  t =0.200000
11599: DEAL::  y =0.823864  (exact: 0.818731)
11599: DEAL::Evaluating explicit function at t=0.400000
11599: DEAL::Time step too large: last_eval_time=0.200000, t=0.400000
11599: 
11599: petsc/petsc_ts_04.debug: RUN failed. ------ Additional output on stdout/stderr:
11599: 
11599: 
11599: 
11599: petsc/petsc_ts_04.debug: ******    RUN failed    *******
11599: 
11599: ===============================    OUTPUT END   ===============================
11599: Expected stage PASSED - aborting
11599: CMake Error at /not_backed_up/drwells/Documents/Code/CPP/dealii/build/share/deal.II/scripts/run_test.cmake:116 (message):
11599:   *** abort

@drwells I don't understand the reasons for the failures. May I ask you to provide the output of the tests with the following options?

-ts_view -snes_linesearch_monitor -snes_monitor -ts_monitor -ts_adapt_monitor -ksp_converged_reason

You can add them in an environment variable PETSC_OPTIONS

@bangerth
Copy link
Member

This has tested cleanly, and I think it is clearly a positive step, so I'm going to merge.

@drwells Can you open a report about whatever you think is still open regarding the comments you have above?

@bangerth bangerth merged commit 8a63a90 into dealii:master Jun 16, 2023
14 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants