[Users] McLachlan-rewrite has landed

[Erik Schnetter]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Ian Hinder <ian.hinder at aei.mpg.de>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2015, at 17:44, Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ian Hinder <ian.hinder at aei.mpg.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Jul 2015, at 17:04, Ian Hinder <ian.hinder at aei.mpg.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Jul 2015, at 16:59, Ian Hinder <ian.hinder at aei.mpg.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Jul 2015, at 14:13, Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I just pushed all the changes related to the McLachlan-rewrite merge.
>>> Apart from the McLachlan Kranc scripts and the respective generated code,
>>> there are a few thorns that needed to have test results updated.
>>>
>>> I see zero test failures with these changes on Bethe, Blue Waters,
>>> Carver, Datura, Edison, Hopper, Mike, Nvidia (a Perimeter workstation),
>>> Philip, Queen Bee, Shelob, and Stampede.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Erik,
>>>
>>> It looks like there are some issues with backward compatibility.  I get
>>> this error:
>>>
>>> WARNING[L2,P0] (Cactus): ParameterSetKeyword: Unable to set
>>> keyword 'ML_BSSN::my_rhs_boundary_condition', new value 'static' is not in
>>> any active range
>>> WARNING[L1,P0] (Cactus): Major error in parameter
>>> file '/lustre/datura/ianhin/simulations/einsteintoolkit/rewrite_ML_BSSN_bench_o4/output-0000/ML_BSSN_bench.par' line
>>> 30: Range error setting parameter 'ML_BSSN::my_rhs_boundary_condition' to
>>> 'static'
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, any output parameters referring to the old variables are now
>>> invalid; e.g. phi has been renamed phiW.  Given this, it looks like old
>>> parameter files will very likely all have to be modified for the new
>>> version.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Erik,
>>>
>>> Something is wrong with the merge: the merge commit should have two
>>> parents, but it only has one.
>>>
>>> https://bitbucket.org/einsteintoolkit/mclachlan/commits/all
>>>
>>> It looks like the "merge" is just a set of changes on the master branch.
>>>
>>
>> I merged the master branch into the rewrite branch, and the result of
>> this then back into the master. The former was non-trivial because of other
>> changes that happened to the master in the mean time, including
>> regenerating code, so I introduced a temporary branch "integrate-rewrite"
>> for this. I didn't look at the parent structures of the commits.
>>
>> I now see that integrate-rewrite doesn't have rewrite as parent. Very
>> strange. I only used SourceTree, and only used standard mechanisms
>> (merging, branching, committing).
>>
>>
>> (summarising IM conversation with Erik)
>>
>> It looks like some functionality from master was lost in the "merge".
>>  e.g. the ability to run the tests on any number of processes.  This
>> suggests to me that other changes may also be missing.
>>
>
> Leaving out this ability was on purpose to simplify the merge. In
> particular, this means that the commit that renamed "phi" to "phiW" could
> simultaneously rename the respective output files. Completely changing the
> output format requires re-generating all test results, making it impossible
> to track whether the code has an error. It is easy to do so after the fact
> -- I'll do that right now.
>
> If you find other functionality that is missing, let me know. I'm not
> aware of others, except as listed on the wiki.
>

Was this functionality ever enabled? I see a very prominent "NPROCS 2" in
ML_BSSN_Test.

-erik

-- 
Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20150724/59873062/attachment-0001.html