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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

feat: add analysis points #3285

Open
wants to merge 23 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

feat: add analysis points #3285

wants to merge 23 commits into from

Conversation

AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member

Checklist

  • Appropriate tests were added
  • Any code changes were done in a way that does not break public API
  • All documentation related to code changes were updated
  • The new code follows the
    contributor guidelines, in particular the SciML Style Guide and
    COLPRAC.
  • Any new documentation only uses public API

Additional context

Add any other context about the problem here.

baggepinnen
baggepinnen reviewed Jan 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@baggepinnen baggepinnen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This PR only includes the get_sensitivity_function, but not get_sensitivity, is this a deliberate choice?

test/analysis_points.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/systems/analysis_points.jl Show resolved Hide resolved
src/systems/analysis_points.jl Show resolved Hide resolved
@AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member Author

I'd really appreciate feedback on the docstrings, and suggestions for the docstring for the new linearization_function method.

@AayushSabharwal AayushSabharwal mentioned this pull request Jan 3, 2025
Merged
@baggepinnen
Copy link
Contributor

There are lots of docstrings from the old implementation missing, all these + the ones for AnalysisPoint and connect(a, :name, b) have lost a lot of detail

@AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member Author

Should we make this new interface experimental as well?

@baggepinnen
Copy link
Contributor

baggepinnen commented Jan 3, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Should we make this new interface experimental as well?

we could, but ideally not for too long. We can mark it as stable once we have integrated with JSML and made sure that works?

@AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member Author

I'm not advocating for it being experimental, so it would be great to have this be stable if you're happy with it.

@baggepinnen
Copy link
Contributor

it would be great to have this be stable if you're happy with it.

If you feel like it should, I'm fine with that as well

@baggepinnen
Copy link
Contributor

Should we add some version of this warning?
https://github.com/SciML/ModelingToolkitStandardLibrary.jl/blob/main/src/Blocks/analysis_points.jl#L136C2-L138C4

@AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member Author

While that check can be implemented in MTK, the concept of a RealInput and RealOutput doesn't exist here. I can check that the connection variables in the input/output systems have the correct input and output metadata, but that would restrict AnalysisPoint to be used only with such variables

@baggepinnen
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah this would act on the IO metadata, and it only works in setting that have those properties anyways (regardless of the metadata), so that's likely fine. If the user commits the mistake the warnings warn against, the result will be silently wrong, so we have to either warn or error.

@AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member Author

Once CI passes and the PR is approved, I'll rebase and make SpellCheck happy

@AayushSabharwal AayushSabharwal mentioned this pull request Jan 7, 2025
Open
@AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member Author

Apparently CI won't deploy docs for preview because the PR is from a fork

@baggepinnen
Copy link
Contributor

Apparently CI won't deploy docs for preview because the PR is from a fork

I guess we can tackle any docs issues after merge?

@AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member Author

Yeah. It's not a blocker, it just would've been nice to see.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@baggepinnen baggepinnen baggepinnen approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@AayushSabharwal @baggepinnen