Skip to content

Fix merging responses in nest-server-mpi #3492

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

babsey
Copy link
Contributor

@babsey babsey commented May 7, 2025

When executing simulation via nest-server-mpi, the result seems not correctly.

In fact, when using a number of processes greater than 1, lets say an example np = 3.
It shows only activity of each 3rd neuron.

It seems that we need to merge the responses of nest-server-mpi.

With this PR, NEST Desktop shows activity of all neurons executed on nest-server-mpi.

@babsey babsey force-pushed the nest-server-mpi-merge-responses branch from 78404ae to 909e5eb Compare May 7, 2025 13:45
@babsey babsey changed the title Fix merging responses in nest-server-mpi Fix merging responses in nest-server-mpi May 7, 2025
@babsey babsey self-assigned this May 9, 2025
@babsey babsey added this to PyNEST May 19, 2025
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to In progress in PyNEST May 19, 2025
@gtrensch gtrensch added T: Bug Wrong statements in the code or documentation S: Normal Handle this with default priority I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) labels Jun 2, 2025
@gtrensch gtrensch moved this from To do to Review in Installation Jun 2, 2025
@heplesser heplesser added S: High Should be handled next and removed S: Normal Handle this with default priority labels Jun 30, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@steffengraber steffengraber left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1 The logic seems perfectly correct to me. Robustness could be increased by additional checks of values and lists. But only if necessary.

@babsey
Copy link
Contributor Author

babsey commented Jul 7, 2025

I am working on better solution of combine function.

Thank you for the patience.

Copy link
Contributor

@heplesser heplesser left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall this looks good to me, but I think docstrings for the new methods would be an advantage for long-term maintenance of the code.

@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In progress to Review in PyNEST Jul 10, 2025
@babsey babsey changed the base branch from master to rc July 11, 2025 09:29
@babsey babsey changed the base branch from rc to master July 11, 2025 09:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) S: High Should be handled next T: Bug Wrong statements in the code or documentation
Projects
Status: Review
Status: Review
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants