Skip to content

Conversation

@FabioLuporini
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 21, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 87.30159% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 91.34%. Comparing base (822f146) to head (4d4758d).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
devito/passes/clusters/buffering.py 78.78% 5 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
devito/operator/operator.py 92.85% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2674      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   87.66%   91.34%   +3.67%     
==========================================
  Files         245      245              
  Lines       49024    49082      +58     
  Branches     4313     4321       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits        42979    44835    +1856     
+ Misses       5310     3530    -1780     
+ Partials      735      717      -18     
Flag Coverage Δ
pytest-gpu-aomp-amdgpuX 72.52% <36.73%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Contributor

@mloubout mloubout left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Minor comment

self.exprs = exprs
self.cls = cls

# NOTE: Constructed lazyly at `__call__` time because `**kwargs` is
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Typo: "lazily"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fixed

assert np.all(u.data == u1.data)


def test_buffer_reuse():
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it worth also having a test to make sure that non-reusable buffers don't get reused, even when this option is enabled?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@FabioLuporini FabioLuporini Jul 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

most tests already cover that in PRO

@mloubout mloubout merged commit b54ca3f into main Jul 22, 2025
35 of 38 checks passed
@mloubout mloubout deleted the min-buffer-mem branch July 22, 2025 18:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants