I think it would be better to refactor the tests at the start as in https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/18377 That can significantly increase test coverage which gives more confidence when refactoring everything else. It would also make it possible to compare timings before and after the refactor.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:51, mohit balwani <[email protected]> wrote: > > [email protected] can you please review the changes in proposal so > that i know what i need to make changes in it? > On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 10:27:39 PM UTC+5:30, mohit balwani wrote: >> >> hello, >> I have made some changes in project motivation. Does this look good or >> Should I detail that more? >> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:15 AM Oscar Benjamin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I think it would be good to spend more time explaining what changes >>> you will make and why. >>> >>> Don't assume that someone reviewing this proposal will understand the >>> current problems of the ODE module or why your proposal is beneficial. >>> You should make it clear to them what the problems are and how your >>> proposed changes will lead to tangible improvements. (This advice >>> applies to all GSOC applicants) >>> >>> -- >>> Oscar >>> >>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 19:19, mohit balwani >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > Here is rough draft of my GSoC proposal >>> > >>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1slfj2CJRgKpmf0zOW93YkxYUDUvutTmkDX6BmsFfmIs/edit?usp=drivesdk >>> > >>> > Any suggestions would really be appreciated. >>> > >>> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 9:15 PM Oscar Benjamin <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Mohit, >>> >> >>> >> You don't need to resend the previous emails. This discussion is >>> >> becoming too detailed though and belongs on the Github issue for >>> >> refactoring the ODE module: >>> >> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/18348 >>> >> >>> >> Oscar >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 15:26, mohit balwani >>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > hello, >>> >> > >>> >> > so should I resend the previous mail to the mailing list? >>> >> > >>> >> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:59 PM mohit balwani >>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> For pattern matching, I kept in mind that we can extract the elements >>> >> >> of our general solution from the equation with direct matching just >>> >> >> like First_linear. And for `SingleODESolver` there will be proper >>> >> >> logic checking whether the given equation matches or not. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I am a bit confused about how all linear solvers can be based on >>> >> >> pattern because >>> >> >> let's say we want to implement >>> >> >> `nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients`. >>> >> >> its general equation is >>> >> >> >>> >> >> a_n f^{(n)}(x) + a_{n-1} f^{(n-1)}(x) + .. + a_1 f'(x) + a_0 >>> >> >> f(x) = P(x) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Now p(x) needs to have a finite number of linearly independent >>> >> >> derivatives and in pattern matching to write general solution we >>> >> >> should use the extracted elements given by wilds function. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:18 PM Oscar Benjamin >>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I think the series solvers should probably have their own superclass. >>> >> >>> I'd like to move them out of normal dsolve anyway. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Of the others I think that probably all the linear ones can be based >>> >> >>> on the Pattern solver. You should give a rationale for why you have >>> >> >>> divided them up like this. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 10:29, mohit balwani >>> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Hi, >>> >> >>> > currently, there are 28 solvers in the ODE module out of which 6 >>> >> >>> > solvers have been refactored already. >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > I have classified the remaining 22 solvers on the basis of their >>> >> >>> > parent class whether they should inherit SinglePatternODESolver or >>> >> >>> > SingleODESolver >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > SinglePatternODESolver >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > separable >>> >> >>> > separable_reduced >>> >> >>> > linear_coefficients >>> >> >>> > Liouville >>> >> >>> > 2nd_linear_airy >>> >> >>> > 2nd_linear_bessel >>> >> >>> > 2nd_hypergeometrics >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > SingleODESolver >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > 1st_exact >>> >> >>> > 1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_indep_div_dep >>> >> >>> > 1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_dep_div_indep >>> >> >>> > 1st_power_series >>> >> >>> > 2nd_power_series_ordinary >>> >> >>> > 2nd_power_series_regular >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_constant_coeff_homogeneous >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_euler_eq_homogeneous >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_euler_eq_nonhomogeneous_undetermined_coefficients >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_constant_coeff_variation_of_parameters >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_euler_eq_nonhomogeneous_variation_of_parameters >>> >> >>> > nth_order_reducible >>> >> >>> > 1st_homogeneous_coeff_best ( it just gives the best result from >>> >> >>> > "1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_indep_div_dep" and >>> >> >>> > "1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_dep_div_indep") >>> >> >>> > Lie_group >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > [email protected] does this classification look good? >>> >> >>> > Any suggestions would be really helpful. >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Regards, >>> >> >>> > Mohit >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 1:53 PM mohit balwani >>> >> >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Hi, oscar >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I started looking at the (Single) ODE solver closely and as >>> >> >>> >> suggested by you, they are to be refactored in the form of >>> >> >>> >> classes. After performing all this work it will be easier to >>> >> >>> >> maintain the code and whenever a new solver is to be added it >>> >> >>> >> will be very easy to add it. In my GSoC proposal what exactly I >>> >> >>> >> should elaborate on because refactoring different solvers will be >>> >> >>> >> based on either SinglePatternODESolver >>> >> >>> >> or SingleODESolver only and both of the base classes are already >>> >> >>> >> implemented so we just have to inherit them. one thing I noted >>> >> >>> >> that there are helper functions in ode.py so I guess they should >>> >> >>> >> be moved to other file deutils.py may be. >>> >> >>> >> so in my proposal should I show the code for one of the >>> >> >>> >> non-refactored solvers? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> >>> >> Mohit >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 2:22 AM Oscar Benjamin >>> >> >>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Hi Mohit, >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> That's plenty enough for a GSOC project. You should try to go >>> >> >>> >>> into >>> >> >>> >>> more detail in your proposal about exactly what you think should >>> >> >>> >>> happen though. Perhaps review all of the (single) ODE solvers >>> >> >>> >>> that are >>> >> >>> >>> there now and how they can be refactored and simplified or >>> >> >>> >>> improved in >>> >> >>> >>> the process. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Refactoring the tests so that they can be reused will make it >>> >> >>> >>> possible >>> >> >>> >>> to run all solvers on all of the tested ODEs which will expose >>> >> >>> >>> many >>> >> >>> >>> bugs in the individual solvers. You don't need to worry about >>> >> >>> >>> having >>> >> >>> >>> enough to do if you start thinking about fixing those bugs! If I >>> >> >>> >>> was >>> >> >>> >>> doing this work myself I would begin with refactoring the tests >>> >> >>> >>> so >>> >> >>> >>> that I can use them to compare before/after performance while >>> >> >>> >>> refactoring the solving code. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> I think this would be too much for one GSOC project but the >>> >> >>> >>> ultimate >>> >> >>> >>> goal I would like is to see the ODE code organised more like >>> >> >>> >>> integral_steps with rules leading to other rules and so on so >>> >> >>> >>> that we >>> >> >>> >>> can have step-by-step solutions and better debugging output. >>> >> >>> >>> Many of >>> >> >>> >>> the solvers are actually using substitutions so we should make it >>> >> >>> >>> possible for a solver to simply match the ODE and say "use this >>> >> >>> >>> substitution". We can't even begin to implement a rule-based >>> >> >>> >>> system >>> >> >>> >>> until dsolve is refactored though. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Oscar >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 19:34, mohit balwani >>> >> >>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >>> > I am planning to take Refactoring ODE module as a GSoC project. >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >>> > For every solver we need to make it as a separate class so >>> >> >>> >>> > that classify_ode() can easily match the ode and return the >>> >> >>> >>> > solution right away. After that the test_ode.py also needs to >>> >> >>> >>> > be refactored as there are lot of redundant test and we can >>> >> >>> >>> > use data structures for maintaining and testing each and every >>> >> >>> >>> > part of test_ode.py.This will provide uniformity as there are >>> >> >>> >>> > some blocks which are not tested. >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >>> > So will this be enough for GSoC'20? >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >>> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 12:14 AM Oscar Benjamin >>> >> >>> >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Those might be able to speed things up but not until the ODE >>> >> >>> >>> >> module is >>> >> >>> >>> >> refactored. The reason the module needs to be refactored is >>> >> >>> >>> >> that right >>> >> >>> >>> >> now it runs the whole of classify_ode including the matching >>> >> >>> >>> >> code for >>> >> >>> >>> >> every single solver. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> If it just returned the first match straight away and >>> >> >>> >>> >> computed the >>> >> >>> >>> >> result it would be much faster. Then adding new fast methods >>> >> >>> >>> >> that are >>> >> >>> >>> >> tried first can speed things up. As it stands though each >>> >> >>> >>> >> method that >>> >> >>> >>> >> you add will probably just slow it down more. There needs to >>> >> >>> >>> >> be a >>> >> >>> >>> >> refactor first so that classify_ode still works as expected >>> >> >>> >>> >> even if >>> >> >>> >>> >> dsolve does something different. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 16:04, mohit balwani >>> >> >>> >>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >>> >> > On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 10:00:33 PM UTC+5:30, mohit >>> >> >>> >>> >> > balwani wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> I have ideas of implementing functionalities in ODE >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> mentioned in wiki page. with whom should I discuss it? >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >>> >> > I have attached a pdf file in which there are shortcut >>> >> >>> >>> >> > tricks to solve linear ode, i don't know whether these >>> >> >>> >>> >> > methods are already implemented indirectly or will enhance >>> >> >>> >>> >> > the speed.But In my opinion if they are implemented then >>> >> >>> >>> >> > lot of work could be saved. For example if we look at >>> >> >>> >>> >> > method of undetermined coefficients, to find a particular >>> >> >>> >>> >> > integral of ode it solves for coefficient by comparing them >>> >> >>> >>> >> > and call solve which has matrix as argument. Now with the >>> >> >>> >>> >> > help of these tricks we do not need to call solve as it >>> >> >>> >>> >> > will directly find out the coefficients of particular >>> >> >>> >>> >> > integral. This pdf is handwritten notes and i have tried to >>> >> >>> >>> >> > write them as neat and understandable as possible and with >>> >> >>> >>> >> > each case i have also written 1 example so that it becomes >>> >> >>> >>> >> > easy to go through. >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >>> >> > -- >>> >> >>> >>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> >> >>> >>> >> > Google Groups "sympy" group. >>> >> >>> >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>> >> >>> >>> >> > from it, send an email to >>> >> >>> >>> >> > [email protected]. >>> >> >>> >>> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> >>> >>> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/2df1d019-75a6-48eb-a6ce-676337cda1a5%40googlegroups.com. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> >> >>> >>> >> Google Groups "sympy" group. >>> >> >>> >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>> >> >>> >>> >> it, send an email to [email protected]. >>> >> >>> >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> >>> >>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxR-9tiiEN8Fak_0czd19gtBTiL_Lna09CLWcck72e5j-A%40mail.gmail.com. >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >>> > -- >>> >> >>> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> >> >>> >>> > Google Groups "sympy" group. >>> >> >>> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>> >> >>> >>> > it, send an email to [email protected]. >>> >> >>> >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> >>> >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2BuBTuy4jfMssJJqd59oZO-zf3uA29sMFPxkmjnbwmMexA%40mail.gmail.com. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> -- >>> >> >>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> >> >>> >>> Google Groups "sympy" group. >>> >> >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>> >> >>> >>> it, send an email to [email protected]. >>> >> >>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> >>> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxSf5xAg2V0M1vF2xo%2B1_0C_s4P1pf8%3DPJwVKUYfNNRxyA%40mail.gmail.com. >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> >> Groups "sympy" group. >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> >> an email to [email protected]. >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxS_jx5EeJ2jSefgTGEXDY_D86C4i85178H26nCYEcrkPA%40mail.gmail.com. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> > "sympy" group. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> > email to [email protected]. >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2Buv0SrJtnusseGyGDwUqOBM-vGmTv5Z%2B4CwONdomBt%3D_Q%40mail.gmail.com. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "sympy" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxQvJeYsxKjg8au9JtG%2BP9n%2BNzx0S9xBMuynQeUqRUJS8w%40mail.gmail.com. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/6befc892-802b-4190-9779-c27f3e27adde%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxQNG0rnRMdvrf%2BGB-9k%3D_odncVq%3DL%3D_QD-sdyXL3t95qQ%40mail.gmail.com.
