-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 307
Check SciPy test results #2241
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
Check SciPy test results #2241
Conversation
|
@Flamefire this should be marked as WIP, in terms of what to do regarding the small errors? (according to #2238 (comment)) |
|
If this passes in other more recent cases, then it is likely the tolerances were changed (or something improved) in later versions. It would be a shame to hold this back because of that, and it's effort to figure out patches to solve this. Given that these tests were effectively being ignored in the past, maintaining previous behaviour might just be disabling the scipy tests in the easyconfigs where these tests are failing? |
|
Actually I couldn't get it to work with any scipy :( Edit: Test report similar to the numpy tests coming up to check a few versions |
|
Test report by @Flamefire Overview of tested easyconfigs (in order)
Build succeeded for 2 out of 5 (5 easyconfigs in total) |
|
Test report by @SebastianAchilles Overview of tested easyconfigs (in order)
Build succeeded for 2 out of 26 (26 easyconfigs in total) |
|
superseded by #2862, so closing... |
Similar to #2238 but for SciPy
Supersedes #1744
Note: With SciPy-bundle-2019.03-foss-2019a.eb I get a failure due to a precision issue -.- Same with the 2019b
Those are very small failures, e.g.
-0.00077271310043404 != -0.000772713100434114 (rdiff 9.569216326469691e-14)or"Arrays are not almost equal to 5 decimals" ... Max absolute difference: 1.5497208e-05This is an AMD and Intel CPUs (x86)