style: fix the Runic format check that is red on master - #4913
Merged
ChrisRackauckas merged 1 commit intoAug 9, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Runic v1.7.0 flags the final expression of the `InitializationProblem{iip,
specialize}` constructor for a missing explicit `return`, which has left
the format-check red on master (and therefore on every open PR) since
SciML#4893 merged.
Co-Authored-By: Chris Rackauckas <accounts@chrisrackauckas.com>
ChrisRackauckas
marked this pull request as ready for review
August 9, 2026 19:45
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please ignore this PR until it has been reviewed by @ChrisRackauckas.
What changed and why
masteris red on the Runic format check, so every open PR fails it too. Runic v1.7.0 wants an explicitreturnon the final expression of theInitializationProblem{iip, specialize}constructor inlib/ModelingToolkitBase/src/problems/initializationproblem.jl. This adds it. That is the whole diff — one line, no version bump (matching #4884, #4824, #4801).The expression was already the last one in the function body, so adding
returnis semantically a no-op.Where it came from
Not a Runic version bump: Runic v1.7.0 was registered 2026-04-22, months before this code landed, and CI has been resolving
runic-version: "1"to it the whole time. The regression is a merge with a red check:SciMLProblemOptions#4893, merged 2026-08-07T17:01:22Z at 79b19d7.SciMLProblemOptions#4893's ownRunic / Runic Format Checkwas FAILURE at merge time: https://github.com/SciML/ModelingToolkit.jl/actions/runs/31200346113/job/92938575650MTKParametersbuffer's cotangent back to its own argument #4905, Enumerate the non-public names ModelingToolkit reaches for #4883 all FAILURE), and every open PR sampled (Generatenlstep_datafor the fully implicit DAE path #4912, Register callable parameters as solver nonlinear operators #4909, Avoid piracy in jump dependency traversal #4907, Pin ModelingToolkit's public reexport surface #4881, Scale dynamics constraints as residuals for optimal control #4841, Enforce bounds on observed variables, with a selectable transformation #4840) fails on this one file and nothing else.Verification
Reproduced CI exactly on a clean
origin/mastercheckout at 731eff6: Runic v1.7.0 (same version CI installs — see the job log,+ Runic v1.7.0), invoked the wayfredrikekre/runic-action@v1does,Runic.main(["--check", "--diff", "--verbose", git ls-files -- '*.jl'...]).Before (on unmodified master), exit code 1:
That is the only
✖in the run — all 223 tracked.jlfiles were checked and no other file fails.After this commit, exit code 0:
Zero
✖lines in the whole run.What I did not verify
I did not run the ModelingToolkit test suite. The change adds
returnto an expression that was already the function's last, so it cannot change behavior; the test suites, docs build, and downstream jobs are left to CI.