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

Add Sina as Axom component #1378

Open
wants to merge 56 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add Sina as Axom component #1378

wants to merge 56 commits into from

Conversation

BradWhitlock
Copy link
Member

@BradWhitlock BradWhitlock commented Jul 8, 2024

Summary

This PR is kind of a mirror PR for #1376 (Sina as an Axom component) that allows Axom's CI tests to run. The procedure for forked repo contributions was followed.

Note that this PR must be approved as it will be merged.

Also note that I activated the generated docs for Sina on RTD so they can be reviewed for formatting, etc. Here is the link: https://axom.readthedocs.io/en/pr-from-fork-1376/axom/sina/docs/sphinx/index.html

@rhornung67 rhornung67 changed the title Pr from fork/1376 (Sina as Axom component) Add Sina as Axom component Aug 5, 2024
@bgunnar5
Copy link
Member

bgunnar5 commented Aug 8, 2024

@LLNL/axom I think all of the changes necessary are now complete for this. I'm looking into the failing tests here and I don't believe they're being caused by anything in this branch.

Copy link
Member

@kennyweiss kennyweiss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Making my way through the PR, and this seemed like a good place to check in some comments.

So far, I've looked at the sina source code and docs, but haven't gotten to the examples or unit tests yet. Most of my comments are non-binding observations as I tried to understand the code and its relationship to existing axom functionality, e.g. don't feel compelled to make any changes.

src/axom/sina/CMakeLists.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/axom/sina/tests/CMakeLists.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/axom/sina/tests/CMakeLists.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/axom/sina/docs/sphinx/tutorial.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/axom/sina/docs/sphinx/tutorial.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/axom/sina/core/Relationship.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/axom/sina/docs/sphinx/core_concepts.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/axom/sina/docs/sphinx/relationships.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
/*!
******************************************************************************
*
* \file AdiakWriter.cpp
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note that we have some potentially similar logic in core/Annotations

See: https://github.com/LLNL/axom/blob/develop/src/axom/core/utilities/Annotations.cpp

src/axom/doxygen_mainpage.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@kennyweiss
Copy link
Member

@LLNL/axom I'm investigating test failures right now and it looks like most of the issues come from the blueos system, specifically because of the use of MATCHER_P from gmock. It looks like Klee also had this problem in the past:

// Note: After updating to the GMock in blt@0.5.3, the clang+nvcc compiler on LLNL's blueos

Do we know if there is an easy solution for this yet? If not I can just create my own matcher for Sina like Klee does, but figured I'd check first before going down that rabbit hole.

When I looked at it for Klee, I didn't find an easy workaround. I essentially had to reverse engineer gmock's matcher macros.
It wasn't horrible, but obviously, I'd prefer to use the built-in macros, e.g. MATCHER_P .
See: https://github.com/LLNL/axom/blob/f03603685b597ad01c6010d6c8787495a2dbb121/src/axom/klee/tests/KleeMatchers.hpp

@bgunnar5
Copy link
Member

Ok @kennyweiss I think I've made (almost) all of the changes you suggested. The only one I haven't touched yet is the Sina versioning but we should continue the discussion on that in the thread above. Other than that everything should be good to go here now (so long as all of the tests pass again).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants