-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 230
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Python 3.9] Improve isodesmic and add element balance constraints #2695
Conversation
It seems that the tests for ubuntu have proceeded pretty far and mostly need some syntax updates? |
@hwpang yes, this PR is almost working. There are test failures caused by the changes here, test failures from the resonance changes, and test failures from the original python 3.9 upgrade. I am going to try and find all the failures that are strictly this branch and fix them, merge this PR into the resonance branch, and then start tackling those (will probably need your help on that part!). |
@hwpang I am trying to build locally so I can debug faster - which of these env variables are actually required?
|
The current test failures status:
|
we are not compatible with the latest version, will be resolved in this PR: #2639
This batch of commits should resolve a great number of these, hopefully |
Down to 25 failures:
|
These are the remaining test failures:
@hwpang I think these test failures are because of the changes in this PR, could you take a look?
@xiaoruiDong I think these test failures are due to the changes in the resonance calculation. I will list the here, but we should resolve them in #2694.
There are a handful of other failures which we can resolve in #2687 |
@JacksonBurns Will take a look |
Above commits are intended to resolve the two outstanding test failures unique to this PR. If successful, will merge this PR and resolve the resonance issues in the base. |
@hwpang I think I have fixed the errors that were unique to this PR. Going to merge. @xiaoruiDong I will tag you in the next PR and we pick this up from there. |
This PR replaces #2596 as described in this comment: #2687 (comment)