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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

refactor: trying to improve the constitutive allocation message #3511

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

refactor: trying to improve the constitutive allocation message #3511

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

paveltomin
Copy link
Contributor

updated output looks like this:

meshBodyName/meshLevelName/regionName/subRegionName = mesh/Level0/barrier/cb-0_0_2, 8 quadrature points
  ConstitutiveModels/fluid allocated
  ConstitutiveModels/porousRockBarrier allocated
  ConstitutiveModels/skeletonBarrier allocated
  ConstitutiveModels/rockPorosityBarrier allocated
  ConstitutiveModels/rockPermBarrier allocated
  ConstitutiveModels/relperm allocated
meshBodyName/meshLevelName/regionName/subRegionName = mesh/Level0/wellRegion1/wellRegion1UniqueSubRegion, 1 quadrature point
  ConstitutiveModels/fluid allocated
  ConstitutiveModels/relperm allocated

@paveltomin paveltomin self-assigned this Jan 11, 2025
@paveltomin paveltomin changed the title refact: trying to improve the constitutive allocation message refactor: trying to improve the constitutive allocation message Jan 11, 2025
dkachuma
dkachuma reviewed Jan 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
src/coreComponents/constitutive/ConstitutiveManager.cpp
group = constitutiveGroup->registerGroup< ConstitutiveBase >( subRelationName, std::move( constitutiveModel ) );
group.setSizedFromParent( 1 );
group.resize( constitutiveGroup->size() );
hangConstitutiveRelation( subRelationName, parent, numConstitutivePointsPerParentIndex );
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This recursive call potentially goes deeper than the original code. Are we sure it will terminate?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

good point, i am sure it will terminate but not sure what way is correct
@rrsettgast @CusiniM could you please confirm?

src/coreComponents/constitutive/ConstitutiveManager.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved
@paveltomin paveltomin added the flag: no rebaseline Does not require rebaseline label Feb 12, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@dkachuma dkachuma dkachuma left review comments

@rrsettgast rrsettgast Awaiting requested review from rrsettgast rrsettgast is a code owner

@corbett5 corbett5 Awaiting requested review from corbett5 corbett5 is a code owner

@wrtobin wrtobin Awaiting requested review from wrtobin wrtobin is a code owner

@CusiniM CusiniM Awaiting requested review from CusiniM CusiniM is a code owner

@castelletto1 castelletto1 Awaiting requested review from castelletto1 castelletto1 is a code owner

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@paveltomin paveltomin

Labels
flag: no rebaseline Does not require rebaseline flag: ready for review type: cleanup / refactor Non-functional change (NFC)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@paveltomin @dkachuma