Issue 1478 ensemble inputs casadi

[TomTranter]

Description

Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change.

Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

Please add a line in the relevant section of CHANGELOG.md to document the change (include PR #) - note reverse order of PR #s. If necessary, also add to the list of breaking changes.

• [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Optimization (back-end change that speeds up the code)
• [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Key checklist:

• [ ] No style issues: $ flake8
• [ ] All tests pass: $ python run-tests.py --unit
• [ ] The documentation builds: $ cd docs and then $ make clean; make html

You can run all three at once, using $ python run-tests.py --quick.

Further checks:

• [ ] Code is commented, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [ ] Tests added that prove fix is effective or that feature works

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #1480 (914a8ff) into develop (e21d2da) will decrease coverage by 0.01%. The diff coverage is 95.52%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1480      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    97.78%   97.77%   -0.02%     
===========================================
  Files          323      323              
  Lines        17491    17534      +43     
===========================================
+ Hits         17103    17143      +40     
- Misses         388      391       +3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pybamm/solvers/casadi_solver.py	99.04% <94.91%> (-0.96%)	:arrow_down:
pybamm/solvers/base_solver.py	99.19% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update e21d2da...914a8ff. Read the comment docs.

[TomTranter]

@tinosulzer I think this feature is now addressed by liionpack. I'd be happy to get the code running without experiments in PyBaMM but it might be cleaner to just leave this feature out of PyBaMM and delete this branch. Up to you?

[valentinsulzer]

I'll take a look at how it's done in liionpack, ideally we could reimplement in pybamm and call that from liionpack?

[TomTranter]

Not sure that would work to be honest. The solver in liionpack is a lot more stripped down. The code you'd need to look at is -_mapped_step` here

[kratman]

@TomTranter Can this be closed?

[rtimms]

Closing as this has been hanging around a while. Can reopen if needed.