Skip to content

remove_gauge_dependence! overloads#419

Open
lkdvos wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
ld-gaugeremoval
Open

remove_gauge_dependence! overloads#419
lkdvos wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
ld-gaugeremoval

Conversation

@lkdvos
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@lkdvos lkdvos commented Apr 27, 2026

After MatrixAlgebraKit v0.6.6, these functions are now simply overloaded and the block implementation can be re-used

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Apr 27, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 62.50000% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/factorizations/pullbacks.jl 62.50% 9 Missing ⚠️
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/factorizations/pullbacks.jl 60.78% <62.50%> (+3.64%) ⬆️
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@lkdvos lkdvos force-pushed the ld-gaugeremoval branch 2 times, most recently from 5572080 to 1990b05 Compare April 28, 2026 11:05
@lkdvos
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

lkdvos commented Apr 28, 2026

Needs QuantumKitHub/MatrixAlgebraKit.jl#221
Bypassed this by using default arguments

end
@eval function MAK.$remove_f_gauge_dependence!(ΔV::AbstractTensorMap, D, V, inds; kwargs...)
foreachblock(ΔV, D, V) do c, (Δv, d, v)
haskey(inds, c) || return nothing
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I assume that if !haskey(inds, c), then indeed ΔV doesn't have such a block either and Δv is just an empty matrix? But due to the fact that a c block can exist in V and D and the union semantics of foreachblock, such c would still be generated by the iterator.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, although actually in the current implementation this never happens since all sectors are always present in the inds that come from the truncation implementations, possibly with inds[c] empty.

@lkdvos lkdvos marked this pull request as ready for review April 28, 2026 14:23
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