RenameBoundaryGenerator does not handle merging boundaries

[permcody]

Reason

From Joe Kelley at the NRC:

I am working on a 7-cell model that uses the GapHeatTransfer BC for every pair of sidesets as was done for the "reference" calculation in the extended scope task.

In that calculation, there were only two axial regions in the meshing-tools script, the support plate and everything else. Unfortunately, the real geometry has 6 axial regions above the support plate (eg, lower reflector, fuel, etc). I don't want to have to specify GapHeatTransfer BCs for every axial level (if possible) as that would result in 6x12 = 72 BCs. I'd much rather just have to deal with only 12 BCs (especially as the tensor mechanics part is going to have to change the gap width for all of these).

So, why not merge them into one boundary (sideset) for all the axial regions of a given face? This is what I tried putting in a Mesh block:

  [merge_100_1]   # sidesets for face #1 of SA #100. 
    type = RenameBoundaryGenerator
    input = deleteHP7
    old_boundary_name = 's_1_2_2_1 s_2_2_2_1 s_3_2_2_1 s_4_2_2_1 s_5_2_2_1 s_6_2_2_1'
    new_boundary_name = 's_100_1   s_100_1   s_100_1   s_100_1   s_100_1   s_100_1'
  []

This does indeed collapse all 6 axial levels into one sideset. But, the axial extent of that sideset is only the first level.

Design

Being able to merge sidesets when renaming seems like a logical feature that should be supported. If not, we probably should produce a concise error explaining why we can't do this instead of giving the incorrect result.

Impact

Minor annoyance - but should be improved for better useability

[GiudGiud]

@joe61vette can you share an example we can try this on?
I think this should have worked like this already

[joe61vette]

Wow. Almost 2 years ago. I vaguely remember this and somehow found a work around. But I did have a simple test problem and it runs fine
Archive.zip
.

[GiudGiud]

I think this was fixed shortly after by a rework of that object. I wasnt aware of this issue.
We ll find out soon.

[loganharbour]

Yeah. My changes for independence of ordering should have fixed this.

Refs #16890 and #16885

[joe61vette]

In my previous comment, there is an archive with a simple 2 block test problem for this. It ran fine.

[socratesgorilla]

I will verify with some tests, and close the issue then if nothing is wrong.

[socratesgorilla]

Seems to be working. No reason for this to stay open.