Skip to content

Conversation

d-montgomery
Copy link
Contributor

@d-montgomery d-montgomery commented Aug 13, 2025

To avoid future headaches I'm proposing we add some downstream tests for LMeX and PeleC. I think the following should catch any potential issues from a PelePhysics PR:

  • clang-tidy for LMeX (EB-OFF only)
  • clang-tidy for PeleC
  • FlameSheet for LMeX
  • PMF for PeleC
  • Edit workflow_dispatch to only trigger for development branch

Let me know if you have any thoughts/suggestions @jrood-nrel , @marchdf and @baperry2.

When we are ready to merge, we'll want to edit the workflow_dispatch to read:

on:
  workflow_dispatch:
  push:
    branches: [development]
  pull_request:
    branches: [development]

I had to set the push branches to all to demonstrate the tests work as expected in this PR.

@d-montgomery d-montgomery reopened this Aug 14, 2025
@d-montgomery d-montgomery marked this pull request as ready for review August 15, 2025 16:05
@d-montgomery
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like the changes I pulled in from #605 are causing the clang-tidy tests to fail.

@baperry2
Copy link
Contributor

Show's why this PR is needed haha! Can you apply the fixes as part of this PR?

Copy link
Contributor

@baperry2 baperry2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for this. Looks good. But let's omit the PeleLMeX EB-ON clang-tidy just to keep the total number of tests down; I don't think it should provide anything the others don't (The PeleC build is EB-ON).

@d-montgomery
Copy link
Contributor Author

I removed the PeleLMeX EB-ON clang-tidy test and changed the workflow_dispatch to trigger for pushes and pull requests for development only. This should be good to go now.

@jrood-nrel
Copy link
Contributor

This is a good idea. Thanks for putting the work into this. I wish PeleC didn't require so much building.

@baperry2
Copy link
Contributor

Hmm for the Clang-Tidy here we don't really need to build everything. We just want clang-tidy to hit all the relevant pieces of PelePhysics. A combination like MassCons, Soot-Flame, and Spray-EB would probably be sufficient. Is there an easy way we could set it up to tell CMake to build only a particular subset of cases during the clang-tidy test?

@d-montgomery
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the suggestions @jrood-nrel. They should all be incorporated now.

Hmm for the Clang-Tidy here we don't really need to build everything. We just want clang-tidy to hit all the relevant pieces of PelePhysics. A combination like MassCons, Soot-Flame, and Spray-EB would probably be sufficient. Is there an easy way we could set it up to tell CMake to build only a particular subset of cases during the clang-tidy test?

This is maybe a naive solution, but we could add a flag in CMake for LMeX and C, something like PELE_UPSTREAM, similar to what we do for the regression tests here that includes the exact subset of tests we want to run from PelePhysics.

@jrood-nrel
Copy link
Contributor

@d-montgomery
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for pointing this out @jrood-nrel. I already have DPELE_EXCLUDE_BUILD_IN_CI:BOOL=ON in the PeleC clang-tidy test. We could do something similar in LMeX, but those tests already take a lot less time to build/run than the PeleC test.

@baperry2
Copy link
Contributor

PELE_EXCLUDE_BUILD_IN_CI kind of does we what we want, but I think we could go much further here and exclude almost everything. @dmontgomeryNREL up to you if you want to add the PELE_UPSTREAM flag to PeleC/PeleLMeX or just be satisfied with what gets removed by PELE_EXCLUDE_BUILD_IN_CI

@d-montgomery
Copy link
Contributor Author

For now I think we should merge as is so we have some downstream testing setup. We can always refine in the future.

@jrood-nrel jrood-nrel self-requested a review August 18, 2025 19:50
@baperry2 baperry2 merged commit 896e915 into AMReX-Combustion:development Aug 18, 2025
13 checks passed
@d-montgomery d-montgomery deleted the downstream-tests branch August 29, 2025 19:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants