# Issues with MethodOfLines in SciML tutorial

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/issues-with-methodoflines-in-sciml-tutorial/96398>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Tags:** question\
**Created:** [March 21, 2023, 3:16pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/issues-with-methodoflines-in-sciml-tutorial/96398 "2023-03-21T15:16:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 16

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nilshg](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/nilshg/32/2283_2.png) [@nilshg](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/nilshg)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 2023, 10:15am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/issues-with-methodoflines-in-sciml-tutorial/96398/16 "2023-03-22T10:15:04Z")

</div>

See the update from Chris here, which is probably also your issue:

> [@Issue with MethodOfLines.jl Heat equation example](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/issue-with-methodoflines-jl-heat-equation-example/96411/3):
>
> Yeah it has to do with a recent bump in the road due to updating the return code spec. @xtalax you said you were putting a patch in today?

On a more general note I will reiterate what I said before though: it is exceedingly unlikely that and update from one patch version of Julia to another (i.e. incrementing the y in version 1.x.y) will break any of your workflow **if** you are using the same version of packages in both Julia versions. A patch update should only contain bugfixes so the only scenario where your workflow would change is if you happened to rely on a bug in a patch version that was fixed in the udpate.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/issues-with-methodoflines-in-sciml-tutorial/96398)._