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

Move get_solver test to more natural location #1509

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bknueven
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes/Resolves: N/A

Summary/Motivation:

In anticipation of moving ipopt-watertap and associated code to its own repository.

Changes proposed in this PR:

  • move test for watertap.core.solvers.get_solver into watertap.core.tests.test_solvers

Legal Acknowledgement

By contributing to this software project, I agree to the following terms and conditions for my contribution:

  1. I agree my contributions are submitted under the license terms described in the LICENSE.txt file at the top level of this directory.
  2. I represent I am authorized to make the contributions and grant the license. If my employer has rights to intellectual property that includes these contributions, I represent that I have received permission to make contributions and grant the required license on behalf of that employer.

@ksbeattie ksbeattie added Priority:Normal Normal Priority Issue or PR Discussion labels Oct 24, 2024
@lbianchi-lbl
Copy link
Contributor

@bknueven
Copy link
Contributor Author

bknueven commented Oct 24, 2024

I went ahead an opened this PR because it seemed like a more natural organization of the existing tests, regardless of the outcome of #1511.

The current organization is a historical accident dating back to when WaterTAP was using the IDAES get_solver function, and probably should have been part of #1353.

Copy link
Contributor

@lbianchi-lbl lbianchi-lbl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sounds good, thanks for the clarification @bknueven

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Discussion Priority:Normal Normal Priority Issue or PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants