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

Remove initial_condition from rhs!, rhs_parabolic! #2037

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

DanielDoehring
Copy link
Contributor

This parameter is not used. Possibly relict from computing the error norms in rhs!?

@DanielDoehring DanielDoehring added refactoring Refactoring code without functional changes consistency Make Michael happy labels Aug 15, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

  • The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
  • All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
  • No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

  • The code can be understood easily.
  • Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
  • There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
  • There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
  • The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

  • New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
  • Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
  • Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
  • Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
  • If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md with its PR number.

Testing

  • The PR passes all tests.
  • New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
  • New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

  • There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
  • If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

  • The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
  • If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
    are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 15, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.28%. Comparing base (19ab082) to head (02ea229).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2037   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.28%   96.28%           
=======================================
  Files         462      462           
  Lines       37076    37076           
=======================================
  Hits        35695    35695           
  Misses       1381     1381           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 96.28% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@huiyuxie
Copy link
Member

So true. If I remember correctly, there are also some other places where the function arguments are not compact enough, for example, some functions within the rhs!. Further checks might be needed.

I leave a comment here so that once the PR is merged, I can be notified to refactor my work.

Copy link
Member

@ranocha ranocha left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! That's a reasonable idea. We just have to wait for the next breaking release...

annotate!(0, -15.5, ("Trixi.rhs!(du, u, t, mesh, equations, initial_condition, \nboundary_conditions, source_terms, dg, cache)", 12, :black, :center))
annotate!(0, -15.5, ("Trixi.rhs!(du, u, t, mesh, equations, \nboundary_conditions, source_terms, dg, cache)", 12, :black, :center))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since this is documented, it's a breaking change.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah yeah, I see.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
breaking consistency Make Michael happy low-priority refactoring Refactoring code without functional changes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants