-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 242
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
allow continuous and discontinuous compositions #5909
allow continuous and discontinuous compositions #5909
Conversation
b672ac1
to
23ac19c
Compare
23ac19c
to
d386856
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The structure looks good and except for your test you didnt break anything else ;-). I am sure we will find some problem eventually. Do you want to include the particle support in this PR or disallow particles with mixed CG/DG fields for now?
d386856
to
74e06f6
Compare
It is now no longer allowed. I think implementation is a bit more involved than expected. |
59e12bb
to
2e60d0a
Compare
updated. |
2e60d0a
to
3c975ef
Compare
This might be good to go! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good except for my minor comment, can be merged with those modifications. Is this the time to write a changelog entry?
} | ||
|
||
{ | ||
const auto variables = fevs.variables_with_name("compositions"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
const auto variables = fevs.variables_with_name("compositions"); | |
const auto composition_variables = fevs.variables_with_name("compositions"); |
tests/composition_cg_dg_fem.prm
Outdated
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ | |||
# A test to check discontinuous composition discretization. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Description needs an update
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you copied the test from some other test, can you include that test and only list the lines that are different?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this really what we do? wouldn't that create annoying dependencies between now unrelated tests?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me! (I can't follow all the details, but what I understood made sense to me.)
Thank you for all your work on this, I think it's a really cool new feature!
tests/composition_cg_dg_fem.prm
Outdated
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ | |||
# A test to check discontinuous composition discretization. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you copied the test from some other test, can you include that test and only list the lines that are different?
8a98032
to
33630e3
Compare
updated (except including the other test). changelog added. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am ok merging it with the copied test. I think whether to include or to copy a test depends on the specific case. We have some tests that have 8 variations with just a few lines changed between them, there I think it makes more sense to include a base file. For a single new test with some changes it is not as important.
part of #5748