Skip to content

OpenMDAO 3.43 Support#702

Open
dzalkind wants to merge 1 commit intoNLRWindSystems:developfrom
dzalkind:omdao_343
Open

OpenMDAO 3.43 Support#702
dzalkind wants to merge 1 commit intoNLRWindSystems:developfrom
dzalkind:omdao_343

Conversation

@dzalkind
Copy link
Contributor

Purpose

I ran into an issue in WEIS using the latest version of openmdao (3.43): https://github.com/dzalkind/WEIS/actions/runs/23260484956/job/67627345448#step:9:233

It seems like in v3.43, openmdao is checking connections and making graphs: https://github.com/OpenMDAO/OpenMDAO/releases. I traced the error to this new feature, which seems to run regardless of whether you use the new command, and it's getting stuck around the ca_usr_grid and other member load inputs/outputs.

These inputs seem to be connected/promoted more than once, and this change seemed to make my example on the WEIS-side work.

Type of change

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (non-backwards-compatible fix or feature)
  • Code style update (formatting, renaming)
  • Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
  • Documentation update
  • Maintenance update
  • Other (please describe)

Testing

Checklist

  • I have run existing tests which pass locally with my changes
  • I have added new tests or examples that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added necessary documentation

mem_prom = mem_prom_base + [("cd_usr", f"memload{k}.cd_usr"), ("ca_usr", f"memload{k}.ca_usr")]
elif shape == "rectangular":
mem_prom = mem_prom_base + [("cd_usr", f"memload{k}.cd_usr"), ("cdy_usr", f"memload{k}.cdy_usr"), ("ca_usr", f"memload{k}.ca_usr"), ("cay_usr", f"memload{k}.cay_usr")]

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems like the issue was that the old code had "cd_usr" and "ca_usr" etc that were added to the promote list each time in the k-for-loop. Not sure if deleting all together is the right solution. . .

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's promoting for each member, and the tuple is (old_name, new_name)

I decided to remove this because I became convinced that the issue was that these outputs were being promoted both here and here.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see, okay. Thanks for explaining

@dzalkind
Copy link
Contributor Author

I should have noted in the PR that this is a starting point, and I'm not sure this is the correct way to fix this. It's one way to bypass the error I was getting.

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.

2 participants