Skip to content

Rewrite special-purpose constructors to use in-place operations #232

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 21, 2025

Conversation

lkdvos
Copy link
Collaborator

@lkdvos lkdvos commented Mar 19, 2025

Refactor special-purpose constructors to utilize in-place implementations instead:

t = zeros(ComplexSpace(2), ComplexSpace(2))
unitary!(t)

Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 19, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.85714% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.64%. Comparing base (9bd4c40) to head (67f6dc5).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/tensors/linalg.jl 92.85% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #232   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   82.63%   82.64%           
=======================================
  Files          43       43           
  Lines        5557     5559    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits         4592     4594    +2     
  Misses        965      965           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@Jutho
Copy link
Owner

Jutho commented Mar 20, 2025

Looks good except for the comment/question.

@lkdvos
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lkdvos commented Mar 20, 2025

Good catch, thanks!
At some point we should maybe also normalize our error messages here as well.
I'm still not sure if we want to use lazy everywhere, include information, or not, and it seems like we still have SectorMismatch and SpaceMismatch both being used for similar things in certain locations.

@lkdvos lkdvos merged commit 8e3af86 into master Mar 21, 2025
14 checks passed
@lkdvos lkdvos deleted the isomorphism! branch March 21, 2025 13:07
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.

2 participants