-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 438
Passivity test is ill-conditioned #761
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
Comments
Attn @Mark-Yeatman |
I ran the passivity tests for this branch 10 times on my local machine (Windows), couldn't reproduce. We could just remove the test case? |
The CI failures are on Ubuntu with conda-forge packages. The parameter set was included for a purpose. Is it meaningful? Necessary to test? |
Yeah, I was trying to set something of an expectation about the relative scaling / condition number of the A and D matrices. I'll give it a look on ubuntu tonight. |
Looks like this hasn't reared its head again (at least according to the "actions" tab in GitHub), and I still can't reproduce locally. Do we want to close this? |
Actually, this error continues to be an issue. I've had to re-run most of the recent CI runs on failed tests and this was the error that showed up. I'm not sure there is a fix, but we should at least leave this open to keep track of the fact that there is an outstanding issue. (I have to admit to being confused about why the error shows up randomly; what is the change in underlying state that leads to an error sometimes but not others?) |
The only difference I can imagine is that the job lands on a different worker in the GitHub Actions backend. |
I've not seen this issue pop up in a while. We can probably close unless someone has experienced a problem. |
The test ist marked XFAIL and still fails occasionally. From yesterday: https://github.com/python-control/python-control/actions/runs/3502370893/jobs/5866722552#step:6:997 |
Sorry to let this sit so long, made a pull request to fix. #814 My expectation is that now if we get a weird worker is that one of the edge cases will fail to be correctly categorized as passive instead of getting that division by zero error. ( The underlying reason could be 32bit vs 64 bit?) |
Whack-a-mole!
Now this cvxopt test is flaky
passivity_test.py::test_ispassive_edge_cases
:https://github.com/python-control/python-control/runs/7930805491?check_suite_focus=true#step:6:3450
Originally posted by @bnavigator in #759 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: