ci: Add check for mathematical constants (no macros)
The firstly intended clang tidy check modernize-use-std-numbers is not suited for us:
- it doesn't flag macros like
M_PI - it flags values in our tables that get close to constants, which have a different basis.
benefit would have been to detect cases like static_cast<float>(std::numbers::pi) instead of std::numbers::pi_v<float> or usages of std::sqrt(2.) instead of std::numbers::sqrt2.
The updated test now checks for the classical M_* macros that could be accidentally used.
blocked:
- https://github.com/acts-project/acts/pull/3781
📊: Physics performance monitoring for 3fe140647034a085024a70498417e971095b7e30
physmon summary
- ✅ Particles fatras
- ✅ Particles geant4
- ✅ Particles ttbar
- ✅ Vertices ttbar
- ✅ Truth tracking (KF)
- ✅ Truth tracking (GSF)
- ✅ Truth tracking (GX2F)
- ✅ Truth tracking (KF refit)
- ✅ Truth tracking (GSF refit)
- ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth smeared seeding
- ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth smeared seeding
- ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | truth smeared seeding
- ✅ Seeding trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
- ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
- ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
- ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
- ✅ Seeding trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
- ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
- ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
- ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
- ✅ Seeding trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
- ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
- ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
- ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
- ✅ Seeding trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
- ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
- ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
- ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
- ✅ Ambisolver finding performance | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
- ✅ IVF notime | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
- ✅ AMVF gauss notime | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
- ✅ AMVF grid time | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
- ✅ Seeding trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
- ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
- ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
- ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
- ✅ Ambisolver finding performance | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
- ✅ AMVF gauss notime | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
- ✅ AMVF grid time | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
Hi @AJPfleger Is this test simply complaining or is it also trying to replace the code? In the latter case I have some concern since you may have to decide between (e.g.) std::numbers::pi_v<float> and std::numbers::pi_v<double> and std::numbers::pi
It has a way to fix misused macros. As everything in ACTS, no changes are made without a proper PR. Since we don't have any cases of the macros anymore, they could only be introduced over new PRs.
The author could attempt a quick fix using --fix. If it uses the wrong type, it would then need to slip by the author and the reviewer. In that case it is still a double, which would be the same type as the macro, which would also have slipped through.
So, I don't really see a worsening of the situation.
[!IMPORTANT]
Review skipped
Auto reviews are limited to specific labels.
:label: Labels to auto review (1)
- coderabbit
Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the
.coderabbit.yamlfile in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the@coderabbitai reviewcommand.You can disable this status message by setting the
reviews.review_statustofalsein the CodeRabbit configuration file.
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?
🪧 Tips
Chat
There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
- Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.Generate unit testing code for this file.Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
- Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag
@coderabbitaiin a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:@coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.@coderabbitai modularize this function.
- PR comments: Tag
@coderabbitaiin a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:@coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.@coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.@coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.@coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.
CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
@coderabbitai pauseto pause the reviews on a PR.@coderabbitai resumeto resume the paused reviews.@coderabbitai reviewto trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.@coderabbitai full reviewto do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.@coderabbitai summaryto regenerate the summary of the PR.@coderabbitai resolveresolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.@coderabbitai configurationto show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.@coderabbitai helpto get help.
Other keywords and placeholders
- Add
@coderabbitai ignoreanywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed. - Add
@coderabbitai summaryto generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description. - Add
@coderabbitaianywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.
CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)
- You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a
.coderabbit.yamlfile to the root of your repository. - Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
- If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation:
# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json
Documentation and Community
- Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
- Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
- Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.
Quality Gate passed
Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues
Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code