JuliaDiff / JuliaDiff/ChainRules.jl
Test concrete type constructors in addition to UnionAlls
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Julia
- Stars
- 475
- Forks
- 98
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
In #23, we realized that while it's straightforward to test sensitivities for one-argument UnionAll constructors, e.g. Symmetric(X) and Diagonal(X), things can get more complicated when attempting to test constructors for concrete subtypes. The example in the linked PR was for Symmetric{T,M}, which requires a second argument when used as constructor. We should find a way to make it easier to test such things, perhaps by refactoring rrule_test?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the discussion in issue #23 and the existing rrule_test helper. Compare how sensitivity tests cover one-argument UnionAll constructors such as Symmetric(X) and Diagonal(X) with the concrete Symmetric{T,M} case requiring a second argument. Done means the testing approach can cover both constructor forms and verifies their sensitivities.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- julia
- Domain
- testing-qa
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100