#2666 put t_+ back inside div, loosen tolerance for test

[valentinsulzer]

Description

Fixes bug introduced that made electrolyte conservation a bit better for constant transference number, but a lot worse for non-constant

Fixes #2666

Type of change

Please add a line in the relevant section of CHANGELOG.md to document the change (include PR #) - note reverse order of PR #s. If necessary, also add to the list of breaking changes.

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Optimization (back-end change that speeds up the code)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Key checklist:

• No style issues: $ pre-commit run (see CONTRIBUTING.md for how to set this up to run automatically when committing locally, in just two lines of code)
• All tests pass: $ python run-tests.py --all
• The documentation builds: $ python run-tests.py --doctest

You can run unit and doctests together at once, using $ python run-tests.py --quick.

Further checks:

• Code is commented, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• Tests added that prove fix is effective or that feature works

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (124efe5) 99.68% compared to head (6bad548) 99.68%.

❗ Current head 6bad548 differs from pull request most recent head 460e684. Consider uploading reports for the commit 460e684 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #2758   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    99.68%   99.68%           
========================================
  Files          272      272           
  Lines        19007    19017   +10     
========================================
+ Hits         18948    18958   +10     
  Misses          59       59           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../submodels/electrolyte_diffusion/full_diffusion.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[DrSOKane]

How does this correct things for the algebraic surface form? Are we just accepting that there will be a some conservation errors in that case?

[valentinsulzer]

Yes, there will be some error in that case, but fixing this so it's at least approximately correct in all cases is a critical bug fix

[brosaplanella]

Thanks! Happy to merge once the ubuntu tests pass (I think they just need to be run again). You need to add a line to the CHANGELOG as well.

[brosaplanella]

I think the issue is with one of the getting started notebooks but not sure which one...

[valentinsulzer]

It works locally for me so hard to debug. Can you test it locally?

[brosaplanella]

It looks like the problem is with the model options notebook. I don't know why, but when running it in this branch it gets stuck while in the develop branch it doesn't. Could it be the change in the definition of the flux affecting the heat source terms?

[DrSOKane]

It's working fine for me. Have you tried merging the develop branch and running again?

[brosaplanella]

It's working fine for me. Have you tried merging the develop branch and running again?

Which OS are you using? I suspect it might be an Ubuntu issue.

[DrSOKane]

It's working fine for me. Have you tried merging the develop branch and running again?

Which OS are you using? I suspect it might be an Ubuntu issue.

Ubuntu 20.04 via WSL

[review-notebook-app]

Check out this pull request on 

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[valentinsulzer]

What's really weird is it also fails in the latexify branch, where I didn't change the model. Made some changes, let's see how it goes

[brosaplanella]

@all-contributors, please add @DrSOKane for reviewing PRs