Skip to content

refactor: remove old == and hash implementation for System #3683

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 3, 2025

Conversation

AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member

Checklist

  • Appropriate tests were added
  • Any code changes were done in a way that does not break public API
  • All documentation related to code changes were updated
  • The new code follows the
    contributor guidelines, in particular the SciML Style Guide and
    COLPRAC.
  • Any new documentation only uses public API

Additional context

Add any other context about the problem here.

@isaacsas
Copy link
Member

isaacsas commented Jun 2, 2025

Should this be something we should drop in Catalyst too then? Is there now no notion of system equality, or is there another approach we should be taking?

@AayushSabharwal
Copy link
Member Author

Yes. Its utility is questionable at best and the implementation is difficult and bug-prone. For the longest time, hash and == didn't agree which is bad.

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Yes, this was an intended change with the v10 that got missed somehow. But basically, the fallback == definition is more accurate than this overload which misses a few things.

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Can merge, but we should make sure #3681 has all downstream green and passing before. We have enough downstream updated now that even extensions should all be fine, sans SI

@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas merged commit 7d330f4 into SciML:master Jun 3, 2025
23 of 47 checks passed
@AayushSabharwal AayushSabharwal deleted the as/rm-isequal-hash branch June 3, 2025 10:30
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.

3 participants