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

Introduction of operate_integration_points! closure in run! #7

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 24, 2019
Merged

Introduction of operate_integration_points! closure in run! #7

merged 2 commits into from
Aug 24, 2019

Conversation

TeroFrondelius
Copy link
Member

Just cleaning to make run method more readable.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Aug 24, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 52

  • 27 of 28 (96.43%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • 29 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-5.8%) to 84.536%
Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
src/mecamatso.jl 27 28 96.43%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
src/mecamatso.jl 3 75.46%
src/FEMMaterials.jl 26 61.74%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 34: -5.8%
Covered Lines: 246
Relevant Lines: 291
💛 - Coveralls

jvaara
jvaara approved these changes Aug 24, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jvaara jvaara left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good idea to clean the code.

src/mecamatso.jl
if string(func!) == "FEMMaterials.material_preprocess_analysis!"
material_type = getfield(Materials, problem.properties.material_model)
material = Material(material_type, tuple())
ip.fields["material"] = field(material)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is subject to be changed to be done elsewhere later on

@TeroFrondelius TeroFrondelius merged commit 08164d9 into master Aug 24, 2019
@TeroFrondelius TeroFrondelius deleted the run_method branch August 24, 2019 19:58
@ahojukka5
Copy link
Member

I just give some general ideas what we have maybe missing in past. Being static means that we know everything before we compile. Then it's fast. Being dynamic, we decide during compilation time about types, and then it's slow. I have been working with the field system in JuliaFEM/FEMBase.jl#55 and JuliaFEM/FEMBase.jl#47, I'm quite confident that we have a tradeoff between performance and flexibility, we can choose one but cannot have the other one. From practical point of view, we need material models to be fast. According to my studies, it means that we lose some flexibility when defining models or do metaprogramming to achieve maximum performance.

@TeroFrondelius TeroFrondelius mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2019
Open
@TeroFrondelius
Copy link
Member Author

X-ref https://discourse.julialang.org/t/help-to-generate-code/27935

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jvaara jvaara jvaara approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@TeroFrondelius @coveralls @ahojukka5 @jvaara