Skip to content
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

build: Pick up GeoModel v6 or v7 #3736

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 16, 2024

Conversation

paulgessinger
Copy link
Member

@paulgessinger paulgessinger commented Oct 15, 2024

Allow picking up GeoModel v6.3.0 or v7.0.0.

See https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas/athena/-/merge_requests/75025

@paulgessinger paulgessinger added this to the next milestone Oct 15, 2024
CMakeLists.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CMakeLists.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
andiwand
andiwand previously approved these changes Oct 15, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the Component - Documentation Affects the documentation label Oct 15, 2024
CMakeLists.txt Outdated
Comment on lines 375 to 378
foreach(_gm_ver 7.0.0;6.3.0)
message(STATUS "Trying to find GeoModel version ${_gm_ver}")
find_package(GeoModelCore ${_gm_ver} CONFIG)
find_package(GeoModelIO ${_gm_ver} CONFIG)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, did the version range formalism not work then? I was hoping that this could've been written just as something like:

find_package(GeoModelCore 6.3...7.99)

I'd really like to avoid such custom for-loops if at all possible... 🤔

Copy link
Member Author

@paulgessinger paulgessinger Oct 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah so the range formalism (for some reason) only allows ranges within a single MAJOR version it seems. The range version feature is also seemingly orthogonal to the compatibility check the package can do, which apparently still applies somehow?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's very disappointing. If we can't write a possibly quite wide range, then what's the point of this feature even? 😕

I do wonder that once we have an entire for-loop in our code to make all this happen, is the version check actually worth it? Then again, I was never really fond of such version checks to begin with... 🤔

Copy link
Contributor

@andiwand andiwand Oct 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have to admit I also hack the versions from time to time, so also not a big fan of it. Alternatively we could search without version constrain and then check the version manually afterwards

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My understanding is that if you supply a range, both ends of the range have to be deemed compatible by the target version, i.e. you can't span a range over MAJOR versions, which is indeed disappointing.

I really do want to have a version check, but indeed it might be better to manually check the version after finding without a constraint. I think this only makes a difference if multiple versions are found and CMake would otherwise pick a compatible version out of the available ones.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 15, 2024

📊: Physics performance monitoring for f4e0e68

Full contents

physmon summary

@paulgessinger
Copy link
Member Author

I pushed an alternative approach now @andiwand @krasznaa.

Copy link
Contributor

@andiwand andiwand left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 👍

Copy link
Member

@krasznaa krasznaa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, this I could make my peace with more easily than the previous version. 🤔

Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Oct 15, 2024

@paulgessinger paulgessinger merged commit 9981b76 into acts-project:main Oct 16, 2024
44 checks passed
paulgessinger added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2024
@paulgessinger paulgessinger modified the milestones: next, v37.1.0 Oct 16, 2024
Rosie-Hasan pushed a commit to Rosie-Hasan/acts that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component - Documentation Affects the documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants