Skip to content

Conversation

@lkdvos
Copy link
Member

@lkdvos lkdvos commented Dec 1, 2025

This PR removes the deprecate.jl file, which mostly contained factorization code.
The goal is to free up these names again, which could then be reused in further updates without breaking changes, if we wish to do so.

There were some older deprecated functions in that file as well, that had been there forever (Some even 2+ years), which I think is fine to also delete.

Finally, I removed the PackageExtensionCompat dependency, since that was used for supporting package extensions in Julia <v1.9, which we no longer support anyways.

(I also bumped the version and took the liberty of adding myself to the author list, if you don't mind)

This would probably best be merged after #291 and #316, and can then be used to register v0.16, for which I'll try to write some release notes/changelog and add this to the PR.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 1, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
ext/TensorKitChainRulesCoreExt/constructors.jl 79.31% <ø> (-1.34%) ⬇️
src/TensorKit.jl 13.63% <ø> (-7.20%) ⬇️
src/factorizations/factorizations.jl 94.11% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@lkdvos lkdvos marked this pull request as ready for review December 3, 2025 13:50
@lkdvos lkdvos requested a review from Jutho December 3, 2025 15:24

### Changed

- Tensors now no longer print their data by default, only their spaces. Use `blocks(t)` or `subblocks(t)` to inspect data ([#304](https://github.com/QuantumKitHub/TensorKit.jl/pull/304))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I forgot about the status of that. I do think people are not too happy with no output being shown; would it be so bad to shows blocks(t) by default?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Or is this having a lot of repercussions again on MPSKit etc?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We definitely used to show the output of subblocks(t), which we could add back here (even though I strongly prefer blocks(t), I think that is what people wanted?).
I think MPSKit wouldn't be affected since that would have to use the compact = true setting anyways, which shouldn't print this.
If we were to do this, I would however want to limit the output of that by default.
While I agree that for small tensors this can be useful, this is a nuisance for larger tensors...
Do you think this constitutes breaking changes though?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2025

After the build completes, the updated documentation will be available here

@lkdvos
Copy link
Member Author

lkdvos commented Dec 3, 2025

I tried to further stabilize the tests, but it does seem like playing whack-a-mole with the random number generator again...
I would be fine with merging this as-is, although we might consider updating the readme changelog and coming up with some more release notes?

@Jutho
Copy link
Member

Jutho commented Dec 3, 2025

Looks good to me, but there is a failing AD test on LTS, so that would preferably be fixed. I am to tired at this point to investigate myself but can do so tomorrow.

@lkdvos
Copy link
Member Author

lkdvos commented Dec 4, 2025

I think I kind of ran out of time for this week to work on this, so if you have some time tomorrow, feel free to do so!

@lkdvos lkdvos merged commit 43ebfc4 into main Dec 5, 2025
27 of 29 checks passed
@lkdvos lkdvos deleted the ld-antideprecate branch December 5, 2025 02:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants