Update MultiSolverInterface

[dario-coscia]

Fixes #519

[github-actions]

Code Coverage Summary

Filename                                                Stmts    Miss  Cover    Missing
----------------------------------------------------  -------  ------  -------  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__init__.py                                                 7       0  100.00%
collector.py                                               40       1  97.50%   46
graph.py                                                  111      11  90.09%   98-99, 111, 123, 125, 141, 143, 165, 168, 181, 268
label_tensor.py                                           248      29  88.31%   81, 121, 148, 165, 177, 182, 188-193, 273, 280, 332, 348, 444-447, 490, 548, 632, 652-654, 667-676, 691, 713, 716
operator.py                                                99      22  77.78%   66, 68, 87, 104, 116, 148, 157, 160, 163, 166, 247, 288-307
operators.py                                                6       6  0.00%    3-12
plotter.py                                                  1       1  0.00%    3
trainer.py                                                 75       6  92.00%   195-204, 293, 314, 318, 322
utils.py                                                   56       8  85.71%   109, 146, 149, 152, 188-191
adaptive_function/__init__.py                               3       0  100.00%
adaptive_function/adaptive_function.py                     55       0  100.00%
adaptive_function/adaptive_function_interface.py           51       6  88.24%   98, 141, 148-151
adaptive_functions/__init__.py                              6       6  0.00%    3-12
callback/__init__.py                                        5       0  100.00%
callback/adaptive_refinement_callback.py                    8       1  87.50%   37
callback/linear_weight_update_callback.py                  28       1  96.43%   63
callback/optimizer_callback.py                             22       1  95.45%   34
callback/processing_callback.py                            49       5  89.80%   42-43, 73, 168, 171
callbacks/__init__.py                                       6       6  0.00%    3-12
condition/__init__.py                                       7       0  100.00%
condition/condition.py                                     35       8  77.14%   23, 127-128, 131-132, 135-136, 151
condition/condition_interface.py                           32       3  90.62%   31, 76, 100
condition/data_condition.py                                26       1  96.15%   56
condition/domain_equation_condition.py                     19       0  100.00%
condition/input_equation_condition.py                      44       1  97.73%   129
condition/input_target_condition.py                        44       1  97.73%   125
data/__init__.py                                            3       0  100.00%
data/data_module.py                                       204      23  88.73%   42-53, 133, 173, 194, 233, 314-318, 324-328, 400, 422, 467, 547, 638, 640
data/dataset.py                                            80       6  92.50%   42, 123-126, 291
domain/__init__.py                                         10       0  100.00%
domain/cartesian.py                                       112      10  91.07%   37, 47, 75-76, 92, 97, 103, 246, 256, 264
domain/difference_domain.py                                25       2  92.00%   54, 87
domain/domain_interface.py                                 20       5  75.00%   37-41
domain/ellipsoid.py                                       104      24  76.92%   52, 56, 127, 250-257, 269-282, 286-287, 290, 295
domain/exclusion_domain.py                                 28       1  96.43%   86
domain/intersection_domain.py                              28       1  96.43%   85
domain/operation_interface.py                              26       1  96.15%   88
domain/simplex.py                                          72      14  80.56%   62, 207-225, 246-247, 251, 256
domain/union_domain.py                                     25       2  92.00%   43, 114
equation/__init__.py                                        4       0  100.00%
equation/equation.py                                       11       0  100.00%
equation/equation_factory.py                               24      10  58.33%   37, 62-75, 97-110, 132-145
equation/equation_interface.py                              4       0  100.00%
equation/system_equation.py                                22       0  100.00%
geometry/__init__.py                                        7       7  0.00%    3-15
loss/__init__.py                                            7       0  100.00%
loss/loss_interface.py                                     17       2  88.24%   45, 51
loss/lp_loss.py                                            15       0  100.00%
loss/ntk_weighting.py                                      26       0  100.00%
loss/power_loss.py                                         15       0  100.00%
loss/scalar_weighting.py                                   16       0  100.00%
loss/weighting_interface.py                                 6       0  100.00%
model/__init__.py                                          10       0  100.00%
model/average_neural_operator.py                           31       2  93.55%   73, 82
model/deeponet.py                                          93      13  86.02%   187-190, 209, 240, 283, 293, 303, 313, 323, 333, 488, 498
model/feed_forward.py                                      89      11  87.64%   58, 195, 200, 278-292
model/fourier_neural_operator.py                           78      10  87.18%   96-100, 110, 155-159, 218, 220, 242, 342
model/graph_neural_operator.py                             40       2  95.00%   58, 60
model/kernel_neural_operator.py                            34       6  82.35%   83-84, 103-104, 123-124
model/low_rank_neural_operator.py                          27       2  92.59%   89, 98
model/multi_feed_forward.py                                12       5  58.33%   25-31
model/spline.py                                            89      37  58.43%   30, 41-66, 69, 128-132, 135, 159-177, 180
model/block/__init__.py                                    12       0  100.00%
model/block/average_neural_operator_block.py               12       0  100.00%
model/block/convolution.py                                 64      13  79.69%   77, 81, 85, 91, 97, 111, 114, 151, 161, 171, 181, 191, 201
model/block/convolution_2d.py                             146      27  81.51%   155, 162, 282, 314, 379-433, 456
model/block/embedding.py                                   48       7  85.42%   93, 143-146, 155, 168
model/block/fourier_block.py                               31       0  100.00%
model/block/gno_block.py                                   22       4  81.82%   73-77, 87
model/block/integral.py                                    18       4  77.78%   22-25, 71
model/block/low_rank_block.py                              24       0  100.00%
model/block/orthogonal.py                                  37       0  100.00%
model/block/pod_block.py                                   65       9  86.15%   54-57, 69, 99, 134-139, 170, 195
model/block/rbf_block.py                                  179      25  86.03%   18, 42, 53, 64, 75, 86, 97, 223, 280, 282, 298, 301, 329, 335, 363, 367, 511-524
model/block/residual.py                                    46       0  100.00%
model/block/spectral.py                                    83       4  95.18%   132, 140, 262, 270
model/block/stride.py                                      28       7  75.00%   55, 58, 61, 67, 72-74
model/block/utils_convolution.py                           22       3  86.36%   58-60
model/layers/__init__.py                                    6       6  0.00%    3-12
optim/__init__.py                                           5       0  100.00%
optim/optimizer_interface.py                                7       0  100.00%
optim/scheduler_interface.py                                7       0  100.00%
optim/torch_optimizer.py                                   14       0  100.00%
optim/torch_scheduler.py                                   19       2  89.47%   5-6
problem/__init__.py                                         6       0  100.00%
problem/abstract_problem.py                               104      14  86.54%   52, 61, 101-106, 135, 147, 165, 239, 243, 272
problem/inverse_problem.py                                 22       0  100.00%
problem/parametric_problem.py                               8       1  87.50%   29
problem/spatial_problem.py                                  8       0  100.00%
problem/time_dependent_problem.py                           8       0  100.00%
problem/zoo/__init__.py                                     8       0  100.00%
problem/zoo/advection.py                                   33       7  78.79%   36-38, 52, 108-110
problem/zoo/allen_cahn.py                                  20       6  70.00%   20-22, 34-36
problem/zoo/diffusion_reaction.py                          29       5  82.76%   94-104
problem/zoo/helmholtz.py                                   30       6  80.00%   36-42, 103-107
problem/zoo/inverse_poisson_2d_square.py                   31       0  100.00%
problem/zoo/poisson_2d_square.py                           19       3  84.21%   65-70
problem/zoo/supervised_problem.py                          11       0  100.00%
solver/__init__.py                                          6       0  100.00%
solver/garom.py                                           110       2  98.18%   129-130
solver/reduced_order_model.py                              22       1  95.45%   137
solver/solver.py                                          180      11  93.89%   185, 265, 269, 285, 288-289, 459, 466, 471, 500, 506
solver/supervised.py                                       25       0  100.00%
solver/physics_informed_solver/__init__.py                  8       0  100.00%
solver/physics_informed_solver/causal_pinn.py              47       3  93.62%   157, 166-167
solver/physics_informed_solver/competitive_pinn.py         59       0  100.00%
solver/physics_informed_solver/gradient_pinn.py            17       0  100.00%
solver/physics_informed_solver/pinn.py                     17       0  100.00%
solver/physics_informed_solver/pinn_interface.py           72       0  100.00%
solver/physics_informed_solver/rba_pinn.py                 35       3  91.43%   155-158
solver/physics_informed_solver/self_adaptive_pinn.py       91       3  96.70%   318-321
solvers/__init__.py                                         6       6  0.00%    3-12
solvers/pinns/__init__.py                                   6       6  0.00%    3-12
TOTAL                                                    4430     508  88.53%

Results for commit: bfa7ebe

Minimum allowed coverage is 80.123%

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results

[GiovanniCanali]

Thank you @dario-coscia for this PR.

I agree on the proposed changes, but I do not like how you make the user aware of manual optimization. In my opinion, introducing a bug on purpose does not look like the cleanest way to achieve this.

What about a note in the documentation?

[GiovanniCanali]

Thank you @dario-coscia for this PR.

I agree on the proposed changes, but I do not like how you make the user aware of manual optimization. In my opinion, introducing a bug on purpose does look like the cleanest way to achieve this.

What about a note in the documentation?

I propose something like this:

"""
Docstring...

.. note::
    When creating a subclass of :class:`MultiSolverInterface`, ensure that `automatic_optimization`
    is set to `False`, and manually handle backpropagation, as well as optimizer and scheduler steps.
"""

What do you think, @ndem0?

[dario-coscia]

Thank you @dario-coscia for this PR.

I agree on the proposed changes, but I do not like how you make the user aware of manual optimization. In my opinion, introducing a bug on purpose does look like the cleanest way to achieve this.

What about a note in the documentation?

By default, lightning sets that variable equal to true, which I agree with since we want automatic optimization by default. I can remove it but in the future, if PyTorch lightning decides to change it, it will cause unexpected behaviour in the Multisolver

[GiovanniCanali]

Thank you @dario-coscia for this PR.
I agree on the proposed changes, but I do not like how you make the user aware of manual optimization. In my opinion, introducing a bug on purpose does look like the cleanest way to achieve this.
What about a note in the documentation?

By default, lightning sets that variable equal to true, which I agree with since we want automatic optimization by default. I can remove it but in the future, if PyTorch lightning decides to change it, it will cause unexpected behaviour in the Multisolver

I see your point! What about setting it directly to False then? As far as I know, there are no cases in which a subclass of MultiSolverInterface handles automatic_optimization=True.

[dario-coscia]

Thank you @dario-coscia for this PR.
I agree on the proposed changes, but I do not like how you make the user aware of manual optimization. In my opinion, introducing a bug on purpose does look like the cleanest way to achieve this.
What about a note in the documentation?

By default, lightning sets that variable equal to true, which I agree with since we want automatic optimization by default. I can remove it but in the future, if PyTorch lightning decides to change it, it will cause unexpected behaviour in the Multisolver

I see your point! What about setting it directly to False then? As far as I know, there are no cases in which a subclass of MultiSolverInterface handles automatic_optimization=True.

The problem of setting it to False is that if you forget to do manual optimization in the training step (which needs to be override), lightning does not complain and you have a code that runs but doesn't optimized and it is hard to track back the error

[GiovanniCanali]

Thank you @dario-coscia for this PR.

I agree on the proposed changes, but I do not like how you make the user aware of manual optimization. In my opinion, introducing a bug on purpose does look like the cleanest way to achieve this.

What about a note in the documentation?

By default, lightning sets that variable equal to true, which I agree with since we want automatic optimization by default. I can remove it but in the future, if PyTorch lightning decides to change it, it will cause unexpected behaviour in the Multisolver

I see your point! What about setting it directly to False then? As far as I know, there are no cases in which a subclass of MultiSolverInterface handles automatic_optimization=True.

The problem of setting it to False is that if you forget to do manual optimization in the training step (which needs to be override), lightning does not complain and you have a code that runs but doesn't optimized and it is hard to track back the error

I understand. However, I am positive a note in the documentation should suffice.

I suggest to wait for other opinions, so as to find the best option. Meanwhile, thank you for the clarification!

[dario-coscia]

@ndem0 We have a discussion going with @GiovanniCanali (see above) on this line here:

PINA/pina/solver/solver.py

Line 505 in 2841ab5

# set automatic optimization to True.

What do you think it might be the best option? Thank you!

[dario-coscia]

@ndem0 We have a discussion going with @GiovanniCanali (see above) on this line here:

PINA/pina/solver/solver.py

Line 505 in 2841ab5

# set automatic optimization to True.

What do you think it might be the best option? Thank you!

@GiovanniCanali @FilippoOlivo I talked quickly with @ndem0 on the issue to get feedback, but I had trouble implementing a runtime warning. Therefore, I set automatic_optimization to False (as it should be) and added a comment in the documentation. I think this is the best fix; it is not intrusive, and we can always change it in the future. Since this is a bug, I would like it to merge it asap in the master branch.

[GiovanniCanali]

Everything looks fine for me!

[GiovanniCanali]

@ndem0 We have a discussion going with @GiovanniCanali (see above) on this line here:

PINA/pina/solver/solver.py

Line 505 in 2841ab5

# set automatic optimization to True.

What do you think it might be the best option? Thank you!

@GiovanniCanali @FilippoOlivo I talked quickly with @ndem0 on the issue to get feedback, but I had trouble implementing a runtime warning. Therefore, I set automatic_optimization to False (as it should be) and added a comment in the documentation. I think this is the best fix; it is not intrusive, and we can always change it in the future. Since this is a bug, I would like it to merge it asap in the master branch.

I am ok with this solution!

[dario-coscia]

@GiovanniCanali if you are ok with it please approve the PR for merging