-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
Use RelativeSolutionTolerance #140
Conversation
Codecov ReportBase: 93.09% // Head: 93.41% // Increases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #140 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 93.09% 93.41% +0.32%
==========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 1071 1109 +38
==========================================
+ Hits 997 1036 +39
+ Misses 74 73 -1
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
Note to self: try without catching |
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.
LGTM
bors r+ |
140: Use RelativeSolutionTolerance r=charleskawczynski a=charleskawczynski This PR addresses one of the check boxes in #134, by changing from `SolutionTolerance` to `RelativeSolutionTolerance`. One downside of this, unfortunately, is that it's a breaking change, but I think it's fine if we know that this is what we want in the long run. Alternatively, we could require users to pass in `::RootSolvers.AbstractTolerance`, which would make the interface less likely to be breaking, however this means that our interface would be tied to using `RootSolvers`, so it's not a complete win to do that. It looks like all the tests pass with these changes. Co-authored-by: Charles Kawczynski <[email protected]>
bors r- |
Canceled. |
945be7d
to
e57d9af
Compare
bors r+ |
This PR addresses one of the check boxes in #134, by changing from
SolutionTolerance
toRelativeSolutionTolerance
.One downside of this, unfortunately, is that it's a breaking change, but I think it's fine if we know that this is what we want in the long run.
Alternatively, we could require users to pass in
::RootSolvers.AbstractTolerance
, which would make the interface less likely to be breaking, however this means that our interface would be tied to usingRootSolvers
, so it's not a complete win to do that.It looks like all the tests pass with these changes.