Add a CI workflow to test MATLAB-based tutorials - #942
Merged
Merged
Conversation
IshaanDesai
approved these changes
Oct 2, 2026
IshaanDesai
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I went over the workflow file, and it makes sense. I just have one minor question.
Member
Author
|
I added a check for the error at the end of % Error thresholds based on a reference run
if error_I > 0.47 || error_U > 0.12
error("Voltage or current differs more than expected from the analytical solution.");
quit(1)
endI also added the logging open & close in the |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In the context of #448, the only component missing is the MATLAB bindings. Potential ways to test that would be:
This PR follows the second approach:
matlabin its name, or weekly (at the same time as the weekly system tests), or manually,developof the matlab-bindings and build it in a subdirectoryprecice-exportsIt does not do the numerical comparison that the system tests do. That would be nice for completeness, but I think it would be a bit too complicated as a special case, without much benefit right now. I am considering options, but this already runs and is much better than the current state. -> Added a check that the error from the analytical solution stays below some threshold. This also meant changing the
run.shto not callexitat the end.Example test run: https://github.com/precice/tutorials/actions/runs/37068828012/job/111043137372?pr=942
Checklist
changelog-entries/<PRnumber>.md.