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

cspdk cleanup #51

Merged
merged 23 commits into from
Jul 8, 2024
Merged

cspdk cleanup #51

merged 23 commits into from
Jul 8, 2024

Conversation

flaport
Copy link
Contributor

@flaport flaport commented Jul 7, 2024

Some more cleanup of cspdk.

  • more consistency over 3 pdk versions
  • improved tech (force xs name when default etc)

passes all tests except regression tests (note: you'll need the current master branch of gdsfactory!)

Please review and let me know what you think @joamatab

@flaport flaport added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 7, 2024
Copy link

sourcery-ai bot commented Jul 7, 2024

🧙 Sourcery has finished reviewing your pull request!


Tips
  • Trigger a new Sourcery review by commenting @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
  • Continue your discussion with Sourcery by replying directly to review comments.
  • You can change your review settings at any time by accessing your dashboard:
    • Enable or disable the Sourcery-generated pull request summary or reviewer's guide;
    • Change the review language;
  • You can always contact us if you have any questions or feedback.

Copy link

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We've reviewed this pull request using the Sourcery rules engine. If you would also like our AI-powered code review then let us know.

Comment on lines +38 to +44
ret = {}
for k, v in net.get("instances", {}).items():
ret[k] = {
"component": v.get("component", ""),
"settings": v.get("settings", {}),
}
return ret
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

issue (code-quality): We've found these issues:

Comment on lines +37 to +43
ret = {}
for k, v in net.get("instances", {}).items():
ret[k] = {
"component": v.get("component", ""),
"settings": v.get("settings", {}),
}
return ret
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

issue (code-quality): We've found these issues:

Comment on lines +37 to +43
ret = {}
for k, v in net.get("instances", {}).items():
ret[k] = {
"component": v.get("component", ""),
"settings": v.get("settings", {}),
}
return ret
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

issue (code-quality): We've found these issues:

@flaport flaport requested a review from joamatab July 7, 2024 22:34
Copy link
Contributor

@joamatab joamatab left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks good to me

PAD: Layer = (41, 0)
NITRIDE: Layer = (203, 0)
NITRIDE_ETCH: Layer = (204, 0)
# TODO: how can we make this pass type checking?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

remove?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no, that makes pyright error out (not a huge deal, but I like my repositories type clean)

@joamatab
Copy link
Contributor

joamatab commented Jul 8, 2024

it's missing the slab on the die_rc

i tried debugging it yesterday and coulnd't figure out, if you can run the tests or run cspdk/si220/cells.py and build die_rc let me know if you find the isssue

image

it should look like the version in main

image

@flaport
Copy link
Contributor Author

flaport commented Jul 8, 2024

Hi @joamatab , I think everything is now fixed. I went through the yaml definition differences and decided the differences are fine, so I regenerated the yaml test references.

I also went through the gds files and for the most part the differences where fine/to be expected as well. However, there is a minor issue for grating_coupler_rectangular where there seems to be extra padding around the grating in the old version which now seems to be gone in the new version. Can you figure out why? Or if its an issue?

below: old, xor, new
image

@joamatab joamatab merged commit 4d4e0a0 into main Jul 8, 2024
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants