Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add max_model_depth variable to cartesian and spherical geometries #367
Add max_model_depth variable to cartesian and spherical geometries #367
Changes from all commits
6b24038
904ac21
bd65c91
eec0273
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
This has nothing to do with the patch itself, but just as a comment: I assume that you are putting the
#ifdef
around this statement because you would otherwise get a warning about thefound
variable only ever being written to, but never read, in release mode? If so, you can avoid the warning if you putin front of the
WBAssert
. This is interpreted as a "read" of the variable, but you are just discarding the value so read.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.
interesting, I will try that!
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.
on my laptop those if statement do not seem to matter, but probably for one of the tester configurations it does. I will look into it in a different pull request.
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.
Aren't you abandoning the old test here?
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 noticed the only thing happening with
file_name
here isWorldBuilder::World world(file_name);
and thenParameters prm(world);
. Then the prm is actually initialized with a different file. These first two steps on this exact file are already being tested in line 7099-7100, so there is no reason to repeat that here. And there was no place in the unit tester which did this for the Cartesian case, so I think it is a nice expansion of the testing without losing anything.I could have made a new test as well, but I guess I was a bit lazy ;)