Revert "Add OrdinaryDiffEqDifferentiation to test (#2865)"

[patrickersing]

This reverts commit 9d6e4b4.
This PR closes #2891

[github-actions]

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

• The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• The code can be understood easily.
• Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md with its PR number.

Testing

• The PR passes all tests.
• New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
  are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

[JoshuaLampert]

Thanks! Failing downstream tests will need to wait for trixi-framework/TrixiShallowWater.jl#133 and trixi-framework/TrixiAtmo.jl#169.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.08%. Comparing base (4c3bf99) to head (f3dcc49).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2893      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.09%   97.08%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         609      609              
  Lines       47484    47484              
==========================================
- Hits        46102    46099       -3     
- Misses       1382     1385       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.08% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[JoshuaLampert]

Interesting, the error message is a different one than reported in #2885. Here, we really get an error and not a warning, which is turned into an error by @trixi_test_nowarn. Maybe this helps you to debug this in #2889, @vchuravy?

[ranocha]

That's because there is

Trixi.jl/examples/tree_2d_dgsem/elixir_advection_implicit_sparse_jacobian.jl

Line 4 in 4c3bf99

using OrdinaryDiffEqSDIRK, OrdinaryDiffEqDifferentiation

[JoshuaLampert]

Ah, that was recently added in #2864. Do we need to import OrdinaryDiffEqDifferentiation im this elixir? We dis not change anything else in this elixir in #2864. So either it works without importing it as before or SciML changes something, such that it became necessary. In this case this "something" could point us to a relevant change, which cold explain #2885. Why did we need to import OrdinaryDiffEqDifferentiation in #2864, @DanielDoehring?

[DanielDoehring]

Ah, that was recently added in #2864. Do we need to import OrdinaryDiffEqDifferentiation im this elixir? We dis not change anything else in this elixir in #2864. So either it works without importing it as before or SciML changes something, such that it became necessary. In this case this "something" could point us to a relevant change, which cold explain #2885. Why did we need to import OrdinaryDiffEqDifferentiation in #2864, @DanielDoehring?

I guess no real reason, I hoped that this would fix the test issues, and of course, after that change the tests (luckily) passed.

[JoshuaLampert]

Ok, so then I guess we could revert that, too since it doesn't fix the problem.