Use Analysis CB

[DanielDoehring]

This seems like it has been missed originally.

[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.

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.

[ranocha]

Thanks! Could you please write a PR description next time, even if it's just a small PR like this one?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (0cf3e67) 95.46% compared to head (b507882) 87.52%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1650      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.46%   87.52%   -7.94%     
==========================================
  Files         418      418              
  Lines       34247    34236      -11     
==========================================
- Hits        32692    29963    -2729     
- Misses       1555     4273    +2718     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	87.52% <ø> (-7.94%)	⬇️

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

Files	Coverage Δ
..._2d_dgsem/elixir_navierstokes_lid_driven_cavity.jl	0.00% <ø> (-100.00%)	⬇️

... and 56 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[ranocha]

Looks like there is a regression in type stability/allocations or something like that for the threaded runs?

elixir_euler_triangulate_pkg_mesh.jl: Test Failed at /home/runner/work/Trixi.jl/Trixi.jl/test/test_threaded.jl:315
  Expression: #= /home/runner/work/Trixi.jl/Trixi.jl/test/test_threaded.jl:315 =# @allocated(Trixi.rhs!(du_ode, u_ode, semi, t)) < 5000
   Evaluated: 97952 < 5000

[DanielDoehring]

Hm, I can't reproduce the allocations locally on my machine - except for the analysis_callback, nothing allocates.

[ranocha]

This is definitely not causing the regression. Let's merge this PR and investigate the problem elsewhere.