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

Silo I/O: Read All Kinds of Silo Data #1274

Merged

Conversation

JustinPrivitera
Copy link
Member

  • Enable reading of various kinds of silo data, so we are no longer restricted to multimeshes, multivars, multimats, etc.
  • handle column major data for many cases
  • handle min/max index for many cases

@JustinPrivitera JustinPrivitera removed the request for review from cyrush April 18, 2024 00:03
@JustinPrivitera
Copy link
Member Author

JustinPrivitera commented Apr 18, 2024

TODO

  • [ ] add test for the various read options
  • get guidance from mark about pointvar cases - stride min/max index and major order
  • investigate overcomplicated logic for deciding what to read

@JustinPrivitera JustinPrivitera marked this pull request as draft April 18, 2024 00:03
@JustinPrivitera

This comment was marked as outdated.

@JustinPrivitera JustinPrivitera marked this pull request as ready for review April 23, 2024 17:50
@@ -1781,12 +1786,60 @@ TEST(conduit_relay_io_silo, read_silo)
{
remove_path_if_exists(out_name + "_write_overlink");
write_opts["file_style"] = "overlink";
write_opts["ovl_topo_name"] = meshname;
write_opts["ovl_topo_name"] = meshname; // TODO do I even need this
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good Q: Does overlink ignore this?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think specifying the topo name for overlink is only necessary when there are multiple topos. Since we only read one topo there is only one to output, so I think this should be unnecessary.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm going to merge this and tweak the tests later; there are other fixes to do in the tests.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was asking b/c these are write opts?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

///  In the overlink case...
///   1) We have made the choice to output only ONE topology as a multimesh.
///   2) mesh_name is ignored if provided and changed to "MMESH"
///   3) ovl_topo_name is the name of the topo we are outputting. If it is not
///      provided, we choose the first topology in the blueprint.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

and yes those are write opts

{
remove_path_if_exists(out_name + "_write_overlink");
write_opts["file_style"] = "overlink";
write_opts["ovl_topo_name"] = "MMESH"; // TODO do I even need this
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does overlink ignore this (it always has to be MMESH?)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

MMESH is actually the name of the blueprint topo in this case, since we read an overlink file into blueprint.

@JustinPrivitera JustinPrivitera merged commit 0dd9b21 into develop Apr 29, 2024
25 checks passed
@JustinPrivitera JustinPrivitera deleted the task/JustinPrivitera/03_28_24/arb_silo_files_exploration branch April 29, 2024 18:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants