Skip to content

RealOutputs for thermal sensors #385

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 24, 2025
Merged

Conversation

jbatteh
Copy link
Contributor

@jbatteh jbatteh commented Apr 24, 2025

#384
Using RealOutputs for thermal sensors. Note that any existing usage of temperature sensors will need to be updated (i.e. referencing of sensor output goes from T -> T.u). Connections to sensor output are now possible. Thermal sensors are now following the same style as those in Rotational with sensor output on connectors.

Removing usage of OrdinaryDiffEqDefaults in tests

Checklist

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

Additional context

No new tests were added but existing tests in Thermal package all pass. Note that usage of OrdinaryDiffEqDefaults was removed from a few tests. This package was not included when I instantiated and doesn't seem necessary. Please check if this change is also OK?

Add any other context about the problem here.

Using RealOutputs for thermal sensors.
Removing usage of OrdinaryDiffEqDefaults in tests
@jbatteh jbatteh changed the title Ticket #384: RealOutputs for thermal sensors RealOutputs for thermal sensors Apr 24, 2025
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
using ModelingToolkit, OrdinaryDiffEqDefault, Test
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

remove from the test part of the Project toml as well?

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

@baggepinnen does this constitute a breaking change?

@baggepinnen
Copy link
Contributor

Technically yes, any model that previously used this blocks will be broken. The blocks were pretty useless since they had no output connector, so in practice I'm not sure if they were used all that much and thus if this PR will actually break anything

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
using ModelingToolkit, OrdinaryDiffEqDefault, Test
using ModelingToolkit, Test
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what's the point of the removal if OrdinaryDiffEq is directly used in others?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I definitely didn't understand some complexities here. When I instantiated based on Project.toml, I didn't get OrdinaryDiffEq in my environment at all. I manually added it to run some of the other tests (though perhaps it wasn't really needed there). But even so, the tests that had this uses annotation with OrdinaryDiffEqDefault were complaining that this package was missing So I just removed in these tests. I am definitely interested in knowing what the best way to approach would be.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I use TestEnv.jl yoninstantiate the test environment, which is generally different from the package environment, notably, tests often require additional dependencies.

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Okay so @baggepinnen you agree with these changes?

@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas merged commit 19b8938 into SciML:main Apr 24, 2025
8 of 12 checks passed
@jbatteh jbatteh deleted the issue-384 branch April 24, 2025 16:00
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.

3 participants