Conversation
wence-
reviewed
Nov 22, 2023
|
|
||
|
|
||
| @singledispatch | ||
| def point_evaluation(fiat_element, order, refcoords, entity): |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You could just push this implementation into the body of the point_evaluation method now if you think it would be worth it.
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like how this PR is entirely deleting code at the moment
dham
reviewed
Nov 22, 2023
dham
approved these changes
Nov 22, 2023
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It seems that we did not really need a special case for point evaluation of Ciarlet elements.
Instead of directly tabulating an element on a sympy Variable, we were evaluating the expansion set and manipulating the expansion coefficients trying to simplify tabulations that result in constants, e. g. second derivatives of Lagrange(2). Operating at the expansion coefficient level will only simplify constants when the constant function is a member of the expansion set, which is not true for a LagrangeLineExpansionSet.
It turns out that a special case for Ciarlet is not necessary, as
gem.ListTensorhas constant folding.https://github.com/firedrakeproject/tsfc/blob/5515b2ae3c19e41bf80f347e7259fe9f5d86a9a2/gem/gem.py#L724
Tests that were failing are passing with this PR and firedrakeproject/fiat#54
fixes #114 while keeping the LagrangeLineExpansionSet