Delete lock interface implementation from UmfpackLU

[fredrikekre]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 84.61538% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.18%. Comparing base (d050b1b) to head (9063047).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/solvers/umfpack.jl	84.61%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #617      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.10%   84.18%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines        9188     9179       -9     
==========================================
- Hits         7728     7727       -1     
+ Misses       1460     1452       -8     

☔ 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.

[SobhanMP]

I'm not critical of the patch, but why? IMHO, it's fair to warn people that they are waiting for locks to do sparse operations.

[fredrikekre]

The motivation wasn't really to remove the warning but rather that it is kind of weird that a struct UmfpackLU is lockable, it isn't an AbstractLock for example.

Regarding the warning, since it isn't really actionable by the user, and safe to ignore, it seems kind of pointless?

[ViralBShah]

I think it would make sense to document it rather than give a warning.