Skip to content

Fix blank mse_summary #3893

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix blank mse_summary #3893

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

imreddyTeja
Copy link
Member

@imreddyTeja imreddyTeja commented Jul 15, 2025

The mse_summary.jl script always prints no summaries or error. This is because the reproducibility files are now placed in a separate subfolder, which also contains a prog_state file. This commit updates the get_computed_mses default value for subfolder to reflect this, and ignores the prog_state file when searching for the most current comparison.

closes #3892


  • I have read and checked the items on the review checklist.

The mse_summary.jl script always prints no summaries or error.
This is because the reproducibility files are now placed in a
seperate subdir. This commit updates the `get_computed_mses` default
value for `subfolder` to reflect this

Second fix

Add a filter for the prog_state, as it is the last in the dir,
and t`get_computed_mse` assumes the last file is the
latest comparison,.
@haakon-e
Copy link
Member

haakon-e commented Jul 16, 2025

I'm probably not the best to review this, so I'll just leave some thoughts:

  • Based on your description, the changes seem reasonable.
  • Based on your description of how the folder structure of reproducibility files has changed, would it make sense to add a test that verifies the current expectation of things, to ensure that this code is remembered if the folder structure ever changes again in the future?
    • For example, what would happen if we changed the name of the prog_state.hdf5 file?
    • What would happen if we changed the name or contents of the reproducibility_bundle folder?
    • etc...

@trontrytel trontrytel requested a review from nefrathenrici July 17, 2025 21:05
Copy link
Member

@trontrytel trontrytel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with @haakon-e that it would be nice to add a test that checks if the file structure is as expected. Maybe even add a comment somewhere in the docstring, docs or wiki or wherever people dealing with CI issues will look first

Copy link
Member

@nefrathenrici nefrathenrici left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for catching this, it looks good to me. I will just echo the other comments that this should fail if no relevant files are found to prevent silent failures in the future.

@imreddyTeja
Copy link
Member Author

I'm probably not the best to review this, so I'll just leave some thoughts:

  • Based on your description, the changes seem reasonable.

  • Based on your description of how the folder structure of reproducibility files has changed, would it make sense to add a test that verifies the current expectation of things, to ensure that this code is remembered if the folder structure ever changes again in the future?

    • For example, what would happen if we changed the name of the prog_state.hdf5 file?
    • What would happen if we changed the name or contents of the reproducibility_bundle folder?
    • etc...

Thanks for the reviews everyone.

A test is definitely a good idea, and I will add one before merging.
The reproducibility code as a whole contains quite a few hard-coded paths.
This should be solved with Issue #3887

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.

Reproducibility mse summary is missing
4 participants