Skip to content

Conversation

@holke
Copy link
Collaborator

@holke holke commented Nov 26, 2025

Closes #2102

Describe your changes here:

Related to #1985
The shared memory was often not initialized properly but we did not detect it.

I added an error code to t8_shmem_init following the convention of sc_shmem_init.
This actually caused many of our tests to fail giving more reason to this feature.
The errors are fixed with #1996 which should be merged first.

When the error code is met, we currently abort the program.

The reasoning is that shared memory should always be available to us, since it is part of MPI >=3.0

(This creates the new issue of requiring MPI 3.0 in our build system).

All these boxes must be checked by the AUTHOR before requesting review:

  • The PR is small enough to be reviewed easily. If not, consider splitting up the changes in multiple PRs.
  • The title starts with one of the following prefixes: Documentation:, Bugfix:, Feature:, Improvement: or Other:.
  • If the PR is related to an issue, make sure to link it.
  • The author made sure that, as a reviewer, he/she would check all boxes below.

All these boxes must be checked by the REVIEWERS before merging the pull request:

As a reviewer please read through all the code lines and make sure that the code is fully understood, bug free, well-documented and well-structured.

General

  • The reviewer executed the new code features at least once and checked the results manually.
  • The code follows the t8code coding guidelines.
  • New source/header files are properly added to the CMake files.
  • The code is well documented. In particular, all function declarations, structs/classes and their members have a proper doxygen documentation.
  • All new algorithms and data structures are sufficiently optimal in terms of memory and runtime (If this should be merged, but there is still potential for optimization, create a new issue).

Tests

  • The code is covered in an existing or new test case using Google Test.
  • The code coverage of the project (reported in the CI) should not decrease. If coverage is decreased, make sure that this is reasonable and acceptable.
  • Valgrind doesn't find any bugs in the new code. This script can be used to check for errors; see also this wiki article.

If the Pull request introduces code that is not covered by the github action (for example coupling with a new library):

  • Should this use case be added to the github action?
  • If not, does the specific use case compile and all tests pass (check manually).

Scripts and Wiki

  • If a new directory with source files is added, it must be covered by the script/find_all_source_files.scp to check the indentation of these files.
  • If this PR introduces a new feature, it must be covered in an example or tutorial and a Wiki article.

License

  • The author added a BSD statement to doc/ (or already has one).

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 26, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 77.47%. Comparing base (240b652) to head (e5ab1b8).
⚠️ Report is 18 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/t8_cmesh/t8_cmesh_io/t8_cmesh_save.cxx 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1997   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.46%   77.47%           
=======================================
  Files         112      112           
  Lines       19084    19088    +4     
=======================================
+ Hits        14784    14788    +4     
  Misses       4300     4300           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Base automatically changed from feature-ignore_warnings_in_tests to main November 28, 2025 10:41
@Davknapp Davknapp assigned Davknapp and holke and unassigned Davknapp Dec 4, 2025
@holke holke assigned Davknapp and unassigned holke Jan 14, 2026
@holke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

holke commented Jan 14, 2026

Thanks for the review.

I argue for keeping the >0 condition everywhere since it will catch more error cases.
Thus, there should be no need to change code from my side.

There was one comment by @sandro-elsweijer which i believe i have answered positively.
If you agree, you can merge.

@Davknapp Davknapp enabled auto-merge January 19, 2026 07:06
@Davknapp Davknapp added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 19, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit a4572db Jan 19, 2026
25 checks passed
@Davknapp Davknapp deleted the feature-shmem_init_error_checking branch January 19, 2026 08:38
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.

Feature: shmem init error checking

4 participants