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

Add remapping to coupler_put! #65

Closed
jb-mackay opened this issue Jun 18, 2022 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #99
Closed

Add remapping to coupler_put! #65

jb-mackay opened this issue Jun 18, 2022 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #99
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@jb-mackay
Copy link
Contributor

Currently it is not possible to map to an exchange or intermediary grid -- any field put! in the coupler lives on the space of the simulation that puts it there.

This is because of the current way the mapping is set up which uses a tag (write_sim) to specify the source space/sim when remapping. This tag also (as the name suggests) indicates which simulation has write permissions to that coupled field.

Perhaps the right solution is to remove the double usage of write_sim and add another tag like "space_name" which would be part of the remap operator name.

Adding remapping to the put! side of things creates symmetry and more flexibility for what grids the coupling takes place on. It creates the potential that there could be a coupler-owned field in memory, rather than the coupler only registering pointers.

Originally posted by @jb-mackay in #58 (comment)

@jb-mackay jb-mackay self-assigned this Jun 18, 2022
@jb-mackay jb-mackay added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 18, 2022
@jb-mackay jb-mackay mentioned this issue Jul 5, 2022
10 tasks
@jb-mackay jb-mackay mentioned this issue Jul 24, 2022
10 tasks
@LenkaNovak
Copy link
Collaborator

to be addressed in #211

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants