[yt-dev] YTArray YTEP

[Matthew Turk]

Hi Doug,

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Douglas Harvey Rudd <drudd at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> Let us know when you'd like us to push ARTIO changes to the mainline.  It's still
> being actively worked on, but the main features should work, and we really would like
> to get the new code into the first 3.0 alpha so we can push our users to start testing.

Awesome!  I think I will have time to read and test them in detail
probably starting Wednesday, but I suspect that they're probably in a
good state already to go in.  I'll ping you once I've put in a handful
of other changes I'm looking at.

Incidentally, I'm planning to put all this on a blog post about the
workshop, but I wanted to take this opportunity to say how cool it was
to see over the course of the few days the transition for ARTIO to a
frontend based on opaque data objects.

-Matt

>
> Douglas Rudd
> Scientific Computing Consultant
> Research Computing Center
> drudd at uchicago.edu
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Matt,
>>>
>>> I think the steps you outline are a good start.  My plan to continue the
>>> units work was to try to get the unit tests passing and see what needs to
>>> get done as that process proceeds.  I'm glad to hear you're excited enough
>>> about this to get started on that work.
>>
>> Absolutely.  On the plane I was able to get it down to 193 fails, out
>> of ~2600 or so.  The biggest issues seem to be a problem with how the
>> broadcasting is working (as evidenced in the radial velocity fields),
>> things like Baroclinic vorticity disagreeing with how we're changing
>> units, and some misc other problems.  I've pushed my changes up to
>> Casey's fork.
>>
>>>
>>> At the moment the work of subclassing NDArray is probably ~75% complete.  To
>>> finish we'll need to make sure we cover all of the possible ufuncs and do
>>> appropriate operations in all cases.  Having a formal spec will help in that
>>> effort.  There are also a couple of odd issues that still need to be worked
>>> out to make the code cleaner, i.e. the issue referenced in fce1e6c.
>>
>> I definitely think we need to address the ufuncs through design.
>> There are several issues I'm concerned about, specifically those cases
>> where we do *not* want to return a subclass of YTArray.  As an
>> example, any of the ufuncs that return logical operators.  These could
>> in principle return dimensionless (which is what I have done) but I
>> think I'm more comfortable returning just standard arrays . I've also
>> had to put in what I think is something of a hack in returning scalars
>> when a ufunc drops to a single value.
>>
>>>
>>> Right now all of this work is going on in Casey's yt-3.0 fork:
>>> https://bitbucket.org/caseywstark/yt-3.0.  Last week we were just pushing
>>> directly to the fork but I think now that we're all in different time zones
>>> it's probably a good idea to process further changes via pull requests to
>>> that fork.  Once everything is ready, Casey will be able to issue a pull
>>> request to the yt_analysis/yt-3.0 repository.  Does anyone disagree with
>>> that idea?
>>
>> Yes, I think it should live separately for a while -- it's
>> *incredibly* invasive, and I'd like to roll out 3.0a1 on the 15th.  I
>> think we should wait until the tagging of 3.0a1 to do this.  I'm also
>> a bit concerned that there's heavy development on the ART and ARTIO
>> fronts that has not yet been pulled back in to mainline, and I want to
>> try to pull that in before this change.  I'm not trying to put the
>> brakes on the development, just that I think we need to take this a
>> bit carefully since it's quite invasive and we now have a set of
>> people using 3.0 for their work.  Maybe we could aim to have the YTEP
>> done, and then see how ready the code base is?
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>>
>>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Last week the units stuff really took off -- great work on that front!
>>> I was wondering if I might solicit a YTEP?  As I have been going
>>> through the YTArray changes to get the unit tests passing, I'm
>>> realizing just how invasive it is in some ways.  I think having an
>>> enumeration of the behavior of the YTArray under ufuncs as well as
>>> common operations will be pretty essential.  That is something we
>>> should also probably discuss on this list.
>>>
>>> I'll be submitting a few changes for review by Casey and Nathan as
>>> well.  Do either of you have a feeling for where things stand now and
>>> what is needed next?
>>>
>>> -Matt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org