Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file should not be here. Next time try to not mix applications.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file should not be here. Next time try to not mix applications.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is temporary stuff, needs to be deleted.
| @@ -211,7 +212,10 @@ make_scalar_hdg_stabilization(const Mesh& msh, | |||
| tr.block(0, 0, fbs, cbs) = trace; | |||
|
|
|||
| oper.block(0, 0, fbs, cbs) = mass.ldlt().solve(trace); | |||
| data += oper.transpose() * tr * (1. / h); | |||
| if (scaling) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't omit { and }, even if the block is of one single line.
| std::set<cell_type> ret; | ||
| auto face_id = msh.lookup(fc); | ||
| auto fo = face_owners.at( face_id ); | ||
| if (fo[0]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't omit { and } if the block is of one single line.
|
In this PR there is a lot of code written by @OmarDuran in an ancient version of DiSk++ that was never merged back |
@datafl4sh thank you for keeping me in the loop. The majority of this code was written by me several years ago. While I appreciate the effort to port and extend it, the following might be needed before merging:
@romainmottier, please update the PR description to clearly state that the core implementation originates from my earlier work and to specify the functionalities being merged. With that in place, I support the merge. |
romainmottier
force-pushed
the
Wave_Propagation
branch
from
3725263 to
44ba91e
Compare
romainmottier
force-pushed
the
Wave_Propagation
branch
from
44ba91e to
179b7c4
Compare
romainmottier
force-pushed
the
Wave_Propagation
branch
from
d9146e6 to
901d78a
Compare
|
Hi @OmarDuran , @datafl4sh, I wanted to share my thoughts regarding the regression tests you suggested. Ideally, it would be better to run them to ensure the integrity of the merged code. However, having just started my postdoc, I won’t be able to address this immediately. I believe it would be better to integrate the code now, rather than leaving it on a branch where it might become outdated. What do you think about it? |
|
Hello @romainmottier , DiSk++ is already lacking unit tests, and it is not ideal to continue on this route. On the other hand, I perfectly understand your situation and I think that this code is worth preserving. So I'd go ahead with the integration; let's see also what @OmarDuran says. |
3 participants
No description provided.