Fix ODEFunction constructor #483
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![ai-maintainer[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/339956?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AI-Maintainer Review for PR - Fix ODEFunction constructor
Title and Description ❌
The title is clear but the description is missing
The title of the pull request is clear and indicates the purpose of the changes. However, the description is missing. It would be beneficial for the contributor to provide a brief description of the problem they encountered and how their changes address it. This would improve the clarity and understanding of the purpose of the changes for the reviewers.Scope of Changes ✅
The changes are narrowly focused
The changes in this pull request are narrowly focused on fixing the ODEFunction constructor. There are no indications of the author trying to resolve multiple issues simultaneously.Testing ❌
No information about testing is provided
The description of the pull request does not provide any information about how the author tested the changes. It would be beneficial for the contributor to include details about the testing methodology they employed to ensure the correctness and effectiveness of their modifications.Code Changes ✅
The code changes are appropriate
The code changes seem to be appropriate for the stated purpose of fixing the ODEFunction constructor. The diff shows modifications related to the constructor, specifically in the arguments being passed to it.Required Changes
- Please provide a description for the pull request that explains the problem you encountered and how your changes address it.
- Please provide information about how you tested the changes.
Potential Issues
Without a description or testing information, it's difficult to identify potential issues. Please provide these details to help ensure the reliability and effectiveness of the changes.
Reviewed with AI Maintainer
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #483 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 57.28% 55.76% -1.52%
==========================================
Files 50 50
Lines 3657 3658 +1
==========================================
- Hits 2095 2040 -55
- Misses 1562 1618 +56
... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
ChrisRackauckas
approved these changes
Aug 22, 2023
|
How did this come up? AutoSpecialize is almost always going to be preferred to NoSpecialize |
|
JuliaSimCompiler switches to |
|
Does that actually make a difference? |
|
It helped compare to FullSpecialize, but I didn't compare it to |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.