Skip to content
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

Clean up equivalent polynomials implementation and cutfem method #1242

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Jan 29, 2021

Conversation

cekees
Copy link
Member

@cekees cekees commented Jan 12, 2021

Mandatory Checklist

Please ensure that the following criteria are met:

  • Title of pull request describes the changes/features
  • Request at least 2 reviewers
  • If new files are being added, the files are no larger than 100kB. Post the file sizes.
  • Code coverage did not decrease. If this is a bug fix, a test should cover that bug fix. If a new feature is added, a test should be made to cover that feature.
  • New features have appropriate documentation strings (readable by sphinx)
  • Contributor has read and agreed with CONTRIBUTING.md and has added themselves to CONTRIBUTORS.md

As a general rule of thumb, try to follow PEP8 guidelines.

Description

cekees and others added 11 commits December 11, 2020 20:38
…structor (equal to 0.0). When I switched memBase to Profiling.memLast to get rid of the NameError, it seemed to run fine. I don't know what the significance of memBase is, but it wasn't being used anywhere outside of log statements from what I could tell.
* rits-true option for linear solver convergence (exit on r or its)
* safeguard against degenerate quad cut case (cut hits two vertices)
* commented out hack to pin pressure dof for pure neumann problem
memBase from NumericalSolution.py is Profiling.memLast inside the con…
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 13, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #1242 (58cbbb5) into master (abb3f00) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 82.65%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1242   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   52.81%   52.82%           
=======================================
  Files         531      531           
  Lines      109772   109802   +30     
=======================================
+ Hits        57975    58001   +26     
- Misses      51797    51801    +4     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
proteus/SpatialTools.py 57.17% <ø> (ø)
proteus/mprans/RANS2P.py 87.56% <ø> (ø)
proteus/config/__init__.py 55.17% <50.00%> (ø)
proteus/MeshTools.py 55.28% <80.26%> (+0.14%) ⬆️
proteus/LinearSolvers.py 58.01% <93.33%> (+0.17%) ⬆️
proteus/LinearAlgebraTools.py 78.70% <100.00%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
proteus/NumericalSolution.py 78.14% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
proteus/tests/ci/poisson_3d_tetgen_c0p1_n.py 93.02% <100.00%> (ø)
proteus/tests/test_boundaryconditions.py 97.21% <0.00%> (-0.37%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update abb3f00...58cbbb5. Read the comment docs.

@@ -1440,11 +1440,13 @@ def apply(self,A,x,y):
zero_array = numpy.zeros(len(self.known_dof_is.getIndices()))

tmp2.setValues(self.known_dof_is.getIndices(),zero_array)
tmp2.assemblyBegin()
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What does the assemblyBegin() do? Was this a typo that it wasn't there before?

Copy link
Collaborator

@ejtovar ejtovar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes seem fine to me. However, I'm not too familiar with some of the files you modified. But all the checks have passed so this is good on my end.

Copy link
Member Author

@cekees cekees left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @ejtovar

@cekees cekees merged commit 64d5e85 into erdc:master Jan 29, 2021
@cekees cekees deleted the eqp_final branch January 29, 2021 21:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants