ffc team mailing list archive

["Martin Sandve Alnæs" <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/9/10 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:33:27AM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
>> Quoting Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:17:32AM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > This is my standard procedure for FFC development:
>> > >
>> > >   1. Modify FFC
>> > >   2. Run regression tests
>> > >   3. Regression tests fails
>> > >   4. Look at code, to see if it makes sense
>> > >   5. Generate new references
>> > >   6. Push to repository
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Instead of step 4 it would obviously be better to actually check if the new
>> > code
>> > > still computes the right thing. To this end I've created a module that
>> > verifies
>> > > if tabulate_tensor() is correct according to some reference. The module
>> > needs
>> > > ufc_benchmark to run.
>> > >
>> > > have a look at ffc/src/test/verify_tensor/test.py
>> > >
>> > > ./test.py -h
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Kristian
>> >
>> > I've looked at it and it looks very good. Will you add references for
>> > all the forms?
>>
>> Sure, I didn't want to flood the repository with a lot of references if we
>> decided we didn't need it. Currently, I'm assembling over the reference
>> elements. Would it be better to use arbitrary elements? I'm just wondering if
>> certain bugs will be picked up by an element defined with a lot of zeros and ones.
>
> Yes, it would definitely be better to use another element. I suggest
> randomizing a triangle and a tet and then sticking those numbers into
> the code.
>
>> > Is the idea that we run this only when the regression tests fail
>> > (since it may take some time to run)?
>>
>> Yes, if the regression test do not fail, the code will return the same values as
>> last time the verify_tensor/test.py was run. This is why I didn't include it in
>> the top test.py script.
>
> ok.
>
> --
> Anders

Great! I've been wanting something like this to ease the development
of the UFL based form compiler. I can probably modify your tests with
fairly small changes to use UFL, and make the form compiler an option,
so we can share the tests based on UFL. I'll wait until you've done
the improvements discussed above.

I do wonder though, whether it makes sense to keep two form compiler
projects if both will implement the full UFL language...

--
Martin