No, for [3] all tests passes in ffc.
[3] https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/fiat 2014-07-24 19:28 GMT+02:00 Nico Schlömer <[email protected]>: > Do those tests fail with the latest FIAT master, too? > > --Nico > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Aslak Bergersen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you run ffc with this version of fiat then all 1D tests fails with > both > > python 2 and python 3. Isn't that a problem that > > needs to be addressed now? Try running the following (got this from > Martin): > > > > $ more test.ufl > > element = FiniteElement("Lagrange", interval, 1) > > > > ffc --verbose test.ufl > > > > Aslak > > > > > > 2014-07-24 19:14 GMT+02:00 Nico Schlömer <[email protected]>: > > > >> Okay, so the issue seems to be that the API for 1D differs from 2D and > >> 3D. Consequently, the test needs to look differently, too. > >> > >> The 1D `tabulate_derivatives()` says: > >> """Returns a tuple of length one (A,) such that > >> A[i,j] = D phi_i(pts[j]). The tuple is returned for > >> compatibility with the interfaces of the triangle and > >> tetrahedron expansions.""" > >> > >> 2D and 3D say: > >> # Put data in the required data structure, i.e., > >> # k-tuples which contain the value, and the k-1 derivatives > >> # (gradient, Hessian, ...) > >> > >> This should probably be aligned, but the API will break. I would say > >> that this needs to be addressed at some point, but the removal of > >> ScientificPython/Python3 operability is a different issue. For now, > >> you could just adjust the test for 1D. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Nico > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Aslak Bergersen > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I have added a test for 1D now, you can see it in [2]. > >> > > >> > Yes, I was talking about [1]. > >> > > >> > Aslak > >> > > >> > [2] > >> > > >> > > https://bitbucket.org/aslakbergersen/fiat/branch/aslakbergersen/topic-prepare-py3 > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-07-24 17:31 GMT+02:00 Nico Schlömer <[email protected]>: > >> > > >> >> > The code is a little opaque and the returned data structure is a > mix > >> >> > of > >> >> > lists and tuples and > >> >> > numpy arrays that differ between 2D and 1D and is not documented > >> >> > well. > >> >> > >> >> Indeed! When I dived into the code it was hard to figure out what > data > >> >> structure is needed since everything seems quite convoluted at first. > >> >> Cleanup and documentation is needed here. > >> >> > >> >> --Nico > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Martin Sandve Alnæs > >> >> <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Note: This is about 1D elements, not linear. > >> >> > > >> >> > Aslak, can you link to the bitbucket branch where you've fixed some > >> >> > of > >> >> > the > >> >> > other issues with Nicos branch, so others can download it and get > to > >> >> > the > >> >> > issue? > >> >> > > >> >> > Basically the tabulate_derivative method doesn't return a data > >> >> > structure > >> >> > in > >> >> > the right format so indexing errors occur. The code is a little > >> >> > opaque > >> >> > and > >> >> > the returned data structure is a mix of lists and tuples and numpy > >> >> > arrays > >> >> > that differ between 2D and 1D and is not documented well. > >> >> > > >> >> > Martin > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On 23 July 2014 13:59, Aslak Bergersen <[email protected]> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Hi! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I found an error in your implementation in fiat, Nico. And I'm > >> >> >> having > >> >> >> some > >> >> >> trouble removing it. It is an error for all linear elements (which > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> not > >> >> >> tested by fiat), and can be easy be reconstructed by running > >> >> >> > >> >> >> element = FiniteElement("Lagrange", interval, 1) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The problem seems to be that tabulate_derivative in > LineExpansionSet > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> not changed to return the same as tabulate_derivative in > >> >> >> TriangleExpansionSet and TetrahedronExpansionSet. Is there an easy > >> >> >> fix > >> >> >> for > >> >> >> this? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Aslak > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2014-06-29 22:31 GMT+02:00 Nico Schlömer < > [email protected]>: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> > Changing idioms > >> >> >>> > 2py3 changes idioms that are "outdated". When running the > script > >> >> >>> > it > >> >> >>> > changes > >> >> >>> > type(t) != type(q) to not isinstance(t, type(q)). Is this this > >> >> >>> > something I > >> >> >>> > should do? > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Python syntax > >> >> >>> > The 2to3 scripts have the possibility to change the > comma-syntax > >> >> >>> > to > >> >> >>> > correct > >> >> >>> > python syntax. For example, it changes (a,b) to (a, b). Should > I > >> >> >>> > run > >> >> >>> > this on > >> >> >>> > the files as well? > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Those are things that Python2 linters like > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> pep8 > >> >> >>> pyflakes > >> >> >>> flake8 > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> usually bring up too. I would say that getting FEniCS clean > w.r.t. > >> >> >>> to > >> >> >>> those three (largely overlapping) improves the code readability > and > >> >> >>> quality. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Cheers, > >> >> >>> Nico > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Aslak Bergersen > >> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> > Hi! > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > I have some questions about the supporting to python 3.x. You > can > >> >> >>> > take > >> >> >>> > a > >> >> >>> > look at the changes I have done if you want (or need). > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Testing with python 3.3 > >> >> >>> > I have installed python 3.3 such that I can use it when I want > >> >> >>> > (e.g. > >> >> >>> > py3 > >> >> >>> > script.py). However, when I'm running the tests all the > >> >> >>> > dependencies > >> >> >>> > are > >> >> >>> > missing (For now I'm running python -3). So how do I build it > >> >> >>> > with > >> >> >>> > python 3? > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Support python 3.1 > >> >> >>> > callable() returned in python 3.2, so there is no need to > change > >> >> >>> > it, > >> >> >>> > unless > >> >> >>> > we want to support python 3.1? > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Changing idioms > >> >> >>> > 2py3 changes idioms that are "outdated". When running the > script > >> >> >>> > it > >> >> >>> > changes > >> >> >>> > type(t) != type(q) to not isinstance(t, type(q)). Is this this > >> >> >>> > something I > >> >> >>> > should do? > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Python syntax > >> >> >>> > The 2to3 scripts have the possibility to change the > comma-syntax > >> >> >>> > to > >> >> >>> > correct > >> >> >>> > python syntax. For example, it changes (a,b) to (a, b). Should > I > >> >> >>> > run > >> >> >>> > this on > >> >> >>> > the files as well? > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Six module > >> >> >>> > I have used the six modules to make it compatible with 2.x and > >> >> >>> > 3.x, > >> >> >>> > but > >> >> >>> > I'm > >> >> >>> > a bit unsure where to put it, or how to properly include it to > >> >> >>> > the > >> >> >>> > project > >> >> >>> > such that all files have access. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > -- > >> >> >>> > Mvh > >> >> >>> > Aslak Bergersen > >> >> >>> > 993 22 848 > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > 2014-05-23 12:56 GMT+02:00 Martin Sandve Alnæs > >> >> >>> > <[email protected]>: > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> >> UFL doesn't use __metaclass__ but it uses __new__, is the > >> >> >>> >> behaviour > >> >> >>> >> of > >> >> >>> >> that the same? I'd like to clean up those parts at some point > >> >> >>> >> but I > >> >> >>> >> won't > >> >> >>> >> have time before the summer. > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> If we have to change behaviour of Expression we should > consider > >> >> >>> >> doing > >> >> >>> >> that > >> >> >>> >> simultaneously with the introduction of an Expression-like ufl > >> >> >>> >> type > >> >> >>> >> which > >> >> >>> >> will have several advantages. > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Martin > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> On 23 May 2014 12:24, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> And then there is the change of syntax for metaclasses in > >> >> >>> >>> Python3... > >> >> >>> >>> Just > >> >> >>> >>> goggle metaclass python 3 and there are several pointers to > the > >> >> >>> >>> different > >> >> >>> >>> syntax. > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> Maybe this will be a good point to throw out the usage of > >> >> >>> >>> metaclasses > >> >> >>> >>> in > >> >> >>> >>> DOLFIN? What we need is to add a distinction between > >> >> >>> >>> CompiledExpression and > >> >> >>> >>> Expression. I have tried this before with no luck ;) > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> Johan > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Martin Sandve Alnæs > >> >> >>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> Yes, and if we're lucky we can get to that point without as > >> >> >>> >>>> much > >> >> >>> >>>> work as > >> >> >>> >>>> sympy, since we don't have as much code. > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> The 2to3 tool can do selective changes like change print "" > to > >> >> >>> >>>> print("") > >> >> >>> >>>> and fix exception syntax, which are compatible with 2.7. > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> It can also do things like change "a = dict.iteritems()" > into > >> >> >>> >>>> "a > >> >> >>> >>>> = > >> >> >>> >>>> dict.items()" which changes the memory usage when run on > 2.7. > >> >> >>> >>>> These > >> >> >>> >>>> differences can instead be resolved by using the python > module > >> >> >>> >>>> "six" > >> >> >>> >>>> which > >> >> >>> >>>> implements cross-compatible helper functions for a lot of > >> >> >>> >>>> things. > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> Btw when we switch we should go straight to python 3.3-3.4. > >> >> >>> >>>> Supporting 3.0-3.2 side by side with 2.7 is apparently > harder. > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> (Note to Aslak: read the link from Jan!) > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> Martin > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> On 22 May 2014 11:22, Jan Blechta < > [email protected]> > >> >> >>> >>>> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> >> >>> >>>>> Note that there is also an approach of having > simultaneously > >> >> >>> >>>>> 2.x > >> >> >>> >>>>> and > >> >> >>> >>>>> 3.x > >> >> >>> >>>>> compatible codebase without a need of using 2to3. > Allegedly, > >> >> >>> >>>>> this > >> >> >>> >>>>> is > >> >> >>> >>>>> used in SymPy, NumPy and SciPy projects. See > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > http://ondrejcertik.blogspot.cz/2013/08/how-to-support-both-python-2-and-3.html > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> >> >>> >>>>> Jan > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> >> >>> >>>>> On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:43 +0200 > >> >> >>> >>>>> Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > The plan for the initial work here is to keep the code > >> >> >>> >>>>> > python > >> >> >>> >>>>> > 2.7 > >> >> >>> >>>>> > compatible but ready for a later swift switch to 3 only. > I > >> >> >>> >>>>> > suggest we > >> >> >>> >>>>> > release fenics 1.5 with python 2.7 compatibility intact > but > >> >> >>> >>>>> > convertible to python 3 by just running py2to3. Otherwise > >> >> >>> >>>>> > there > >> >> >>> >>>>> > will > >> >> >>> >>>>> > be too much simultaneous breakage. Then we can discuss > >> >> >>> >>>>> > whether > >> >> >>> >>>>> > we > >> >> >>> >>>>> > leave python 2.7 behind in fenics 1.6 or not. > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > However, I haven't thought about the swig side in dolfin, > >> >> >>> >>>>> > and > >> >> >>> >>>>> > as > >> >> >>> >>>>> > Johan > >> >> >>> >>>>> > mentions keeping the Python CAPI code compatible is not > >> >> >>> >>>>> > covered > >> >> >>> >>>>> > by > >> >> >>> >>>>> > py2to3. I'll discuss this with Johan and Aslak. > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > Martin > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > On 22 May 2014 10:49, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > wrote: > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > Nice. Do we want to support Python 2.7 and 3, or would > it > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > be > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > more > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > sustainable to go all Python 3? My preference is for > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > simplicity > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > and > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > low maintenance, which points to Python 3 only support. > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > Garth > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > On Thu, 22 May, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Martin Sandve Alnæs > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> We have a summer intern at Simula, Aslak Bergersen, > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> who will work on preparations for python 3 support in > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> FEniCS, > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> as well as some other FEniCS tasks, from late June and > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> throughout July. > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> The preparations for python 3 involves mainly: > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> - Replacing ScientificPython for AD in FIAT > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> - Applying and committing backwards compatible parts > of > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> py2to3 > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> - Replacing several functions such as dict.iteritems > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> with > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> six.iteritems in UFL and possibly FFC to make sure we > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> keep > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> the > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> same performance and memory behaviour with python 2 > and > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> 3. > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> I will be on vacation part of his time here so please > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> help him out if he has questions to the list. > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> Martin > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >>> >>>> fenics mailing list > >> >> >>> >>>> [email protected] > >> >> >>> >>>> http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > -- > >> >> >>> > Mvh > >> >> >>> > Aslak Bergersen > >> >> >>> > 993 22 848 > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> >>> > fenics mailing list > >> >> >>> > [email protected] > >> >> >>> > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> Mvh > >> >> >> Aslak Bergersen > >> >> >> 993 22 848 > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Mvh > >> > Aslak Bergersen > >> > 993 22 848 > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mvh > > Aslak Bergersen > > 993 22 848 > > > -- Mvh Aslak Bergersen 993 22 848
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
