Fix errors in LB+Lees-Edwards #4829
Conversation
| if (normal_shift < -std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon()) { | ||
| vel_shift[le.shear_direction] += le.shear_velocity; | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it on purpose that nothing happens if the normal shift is inbetween -epsilon and epsilon?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. normal_shift contains multiples of box_l or 0. We basally just want +-1 or 0, but tollerant to rounding errors. However, in one of teh two instances, where this appears, that integer is directly available in the shift variable, so I used that instead. In the other instance, I tried to make it clear by renaming the variables.
|
|
||
| int target_idx = cell[dir]; | ||
| auto ghost_fold = [dim](FloatType x) { | ||
| while (x > dim) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this also looks a lot like a modulo
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It isn't, actually. A modulo would be x>=n or x<n. Here, it's x>n or x<-1. This is, ebcause Walberla uses -1 and n to address the ghost layers.
| # across the Lees Edwads boundary conditoin | ||
| # if offset ^1<.5, it couples to the left neighbor | ||
| # otherwise to the right | ||
| if (offset % 1) >= .5: extra = 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ternary operator would look nicer than if-else without indentation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replaced by round()
|
Your pull request does not meet our code formatting rules. To fix this, please do one of the following:
You can run Please note that there are often multiple ways to correctly format code. As I am just a robot, I sometimes fail to identify the most aesthetically pleasing way. So please look over my suggested changes and adapt them where the style does not make sense. |
|
Your pull request does not meet our code style rules. Pylint summary: You can generate these warnings with |
|
I'm closing this in favor of a new pr |
contains #4827
This
Fixes #
Description of changes: