#5493 closed defect (fixed)
The NF does not handle array modifiers correctly
| Reported by: | casella | Owned by: | perost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | blocker | Milestone: | 1.14.0 |
| Component: | New Instantiation | Version: | |
| Keywords: | Cc: |
Description (last modified by casella)
The NF doesn't yet handle array modifiers correctly. This likely the cause of a number of specific issues: #5202, #5241, #5323, #5373, #5466, #5464, #5423, #5684.
This issue is quite complex and may require some time to be resolved. When it finally is, those tickets should be checked, and then they should hopefully turn out to be resolved.
Change History (15)
comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by casella
- Summary changed from The NF does not handle array modifiers correctly to The NF does not handle array modifiers involving records correctly
comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by casella
- Description modified (diff)
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by perost
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by casella
- Milestone changed from 2.0.0 to 1.16.0
comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 5 years ago by casella
@perost, what about the issues that are not been fixed? Are they due to other causes?
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 5 years ago by perost
Replying to casella:
@perost, what about the issues that are not been fixed? Are they due to other causes?
Yes, #5241 and #5464 seem to be individual unrelated issues. #5323 and #5684 looks like they might be the same issue, probably record-related (Ceval errors where the argument hasn't been evaluated usually are).
I did close eight tickets though. So the number of tickets was right, if not the specific tickets.
comment:7 follow-up: ↓ 8 Changed 5 years ago by ceraolo
Maybe also ticket #4611 falls within this ticket's scope?
In comment 7 I read:
"there is a problem with functions taking arrays of scalars as inputs and record arrays as outputs."
comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 ; follow-ups: ↓ 9 ↓ 11 Changed 5 years ago by perost
Replying to ceraolo:
Maybe also ticket #4611 falls within this ticket's scope?
In comment 7 I read:
"there is a problem with functions taking arrays of scalars as inputs and record arrays as outputs."
No, the example model in that ticket doesn't even have any modifiers, only binding equations, so it's not related to this ticket. Actually, I'm not sure why this ticket even has "records" in the title, the issue had nothing to do with records.
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 ; follow-up: ↓ 10 Changed 5 years ago by casella
Replying to perost:
No, the example model in that ticket doesn't even have any modifiers, only binding equations, so it's not related to this ticket. Actually, I'm not sure why this ticket even has "records" in the title, the issue had nothing to do with records.
The function returns a 2D array of Complex numbers, i.e., operator records.
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; follow-up: ↓ 13 Changed 5 years ago by perost
Replying to casella:
Replying to perost:
No, the example model in that ticket doesn't even have any modifiers, only binding equations, so it's not related to this ticket. Actually, I'm not sure why this ticket even has "records" in the title, the issue had nothing to do with records.
The function returns a 2D array of Complex numbers, i.e., operator records.
I think you might've misread my comment, the last sentence was about this ticket and not #4611.
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 8 ; follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed 5 years ago by ceraolo
Replying to perost:
Replying to ceraolo:
Maybe also ticket #4611 falls within this ticket's scope?
In comment 7 I read:
"there is a problem with functions taking arrays of scalars as inputs and record arrays as outputs."
No, the example model in that ticket doesn't even have any modifiers, only binding equations, so it's not related to this ticket. Actually, I'm not sure why this ticket even has "records" in the title, the issue had nothing to do with records.
Ok. I'm looking forward to the moment in which developers will find time to improve the management of complex numbers by OM, so also #4611.
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 5 years ago by perost
Replying to ceraolo:
Replying to perost:
Replying to ceraolo:
Maybe also ticket #4611 falls within this ticket's scope?
In comment 7 I read:
"there is a problem with functions taking arrays of scalars as inputs and record arrays as outputs."
No, the example model in that ticket doesn't even have any modifiers, only binding equations, so it's not related to this ticket. Actually, I'm not sure why this ticket even has "records" in the title, the issue had nothing to do with records.
Ok. I'm looking forward to the moment in which developers will find time to improve the management of complex numbers by OM, so also #4611.
#4611 is a backend issue, at least at the moment. As mentioned in the ticket there's a plan on how to handle it, and I think that's what Mahder is working on in PR #546.
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 10 Changed 5 years ago by casella
- Summary changed from The NF does not handle array modifiers involving records correctly to The NF does not handle array modifiers correctly
Replying to perost:
Replying to casella:
Replying to perost:
No, the example model in that ticket doesn't even have any modifiers, only binding equations, so it's not related to this ticket. Actually, I'm not sure why this ticket even has "records" in the title, the issue had nothing to do with records.
The function returns a 2D array of Complex numbers, i.e., operator records.
I think you might've misread my comment, the last sentence was about this ticket and not #4611.
Of course, sorry. I'll remove the 'records' from the subject.
comment:14 Changed 5 years ago by casella
Backported to 1.14.0 and 1.15.0
comment:15 Changed 5 years ago by casella
- Milestone changed from 1.16.0 to 1.14.0
Fixed in 4cf73067.