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

Custom pointsets for dvgeo #299

Draft
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

anilyil
Copy link
Contributor

@anilyil anilyil commented Jul 20, 2023

Purpose

This PR adds the capability to specify custom pointsets based on family names that are tracked separately in DVGeo. Each pointset can receive its own custom kwargs. See the relevant PR in baseclasses for how the custom families are specified: mdolab/baseclasses#89

This is a somewhat complete implementation but there are several assumptions. First, the custom families should not overlap. The implication here comes up with derivative computations; if families overlap, the surface seeds of the overlapped nodes will be double counted.

Second, we assume the custom families span the selected design family, although this is not a hard requirement. We may want to add a check if the provided families actually do span the entire design family.

Expected time until merged

Type of change

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (non-backwards-compatible fix or feature)
  • Code style update (formatting, renaming)
  • Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
  • Documentation update
  • Maintenance update
  • Other (please describe)

Testing

Checklist

  • I have run flake8 and black to make sure the Python code adheres to PEP-8 and is consistently formatted
  • I have formatted the Fortran code with fprettify or C/C++ code with clang-format as applicable
  • I have run unit and regression tests which pass locally with my changes
  • I have added new tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added necessary documentation

@anilyil anilyil requested a review from a team as a code owner July 20, 2023 18:03
@anilyil anilyil requested review from lamkina and eirikurj July 20, 2023 18:03
@anilyil anilyil mentioned this pull request Jul 20, 2023
13 tasks
@anilyil anilyil requested review from A-CGray, hajdik and sseraj and removed request for lamkina and eirikurj July 20, 2023 18:04
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 9, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 41.07143% with 33 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 40.90%. Comparing base (20ff867) to head (6f99214).

Files Patch % Lines
adflow/pyADflow.py 41.07% 33 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #299      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   41.02%   40.90%   -0.13%     
==========================================
  Files          13       13              
  Lines        4119     4166      +47     
==========================================
+ Hits         1690     1704      +14     
- Misses       2429     2462      +33     

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

@@ -4523,6 +4595,7 @@ def computeJacobianVectorProductFwd(
# For the geometric xDvDot perturbation we accumulate into the
# already existing (and possibly nonzero) xsdot and xvdot
if xDvDot is not None or xSDot is not None:
# TODO fix
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Still needs fixing?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, it looks like I forgot to make the necessary changes for this to work. Tagging this PR as draft until I can get to it.

@anilyil anilyil marked this pull request as draft September 14, 2023 21:12
@anilyil
Copy link
Contributor Author

anilyil commented Nov 29, 2023

Leaving this as a draft PR because after #330 is merged, I want to push a small update to this PR that brings similar ptset changes to the changes that come from that other PR.

@sseraj sseraj removed their request for review June 14, 2024 15:18
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