-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 53
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
Add a check for duplicate neighbouring cells within the theory pair counters (periodic) #192
Comments
@JonLoveday I pushed a fix via e53bce3. Should not be too long before we can merge this into If possible, would you please checkout the |
* Apparently wp was not a target. Cleaned up the Makefiles * Fixing errors reported by codacy * More code quality fixes * Added the codacy badge [ci skip] * Fixed the fast divide option * More code quality fixes * More clean-ups * Cleaning up some scope and other codacy comments * Fixed an accidental edit and another codacy issue * Modernised the readme and added the OpenMP on OSX to the FAQ * Fixed build failure from improper initialisation * Attempting to fix build failure on OSX * Added a changelog entry * Fixing #192
@JonLoveday The fix is now on the master branch - I am closing this issue. If the fix does not solve your case, please feel free to re-open this issue. |
This is not fixed - see #210 |
This is done / superseded by #277 |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
When periodic boundary conditions are enabled, Corrfunc should be able to calculate separations out to the maximum possible separation. Instead, Corrfunc might fail with the following error message
Describe the solution you'd like
While adding a new neighbouring cell, add a check for duplicate neighbouring cells. A similar check is already performed here. Easiest option would be to package those lines of code into a function within
gridlink_utils.c.src
and call that function from all relevantassign_ngb
calls.Describe alternatives you've considered
N/A
Additional context
Reported by @JonLoveday in #69
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: