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
Make MultiAppUserObjectTransfer boundary and block restrictable #16241
Comments
andrsd
added
T: task
An enhancement to the software.
P: normal
A defect affecting operation with a low possibility of significantly affects.
labels
Nov 18, 2020
andrsd
added a commit
to andrsd/moose
that referenced
this issue
Nov 18, 2020
andrsd
added a commit
to andrsd/moose
that referenced
this issue
Nov 18, 2020
andrsd
added a commit
to andrsd/moose
that referenced
this issue
Nov 18, 2020
andrsd
added a commit
to andrsd/moose
that referenced
this issue
Nov 19, 2020
andrsd
added a commit
to andrsd/moose
that referenced
this issue
Nov 30, 2020
andrsd
added a commit
to andrsd/moose
that referenced
this issue
Dec 2, 2020
jain651
pushed a commit
to jain651/moose
that referenced
this issue
Apr 19, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Reason
In more complicated setups, users want to transfer values from multiple user-objects into a single variable. These values are usually either boundary or subdomains restricted. Multiple transfers on a single variable currently overwrite the values previously set, because the transfer operates on the whole domain. This can be avoided by restricting the transfer.
Design
Add
block
andboundary
parameter intoMultiAppUserObjectTransfer
so that the transfer is localized just to the list of either boundaries or subdomains and avoids overwriting the values set previously by other transfers.Impact
Gain functionality. Better UX: easier input file setup (less aux variables needed to capture subdomain/boundary restricted values - not variables). Also easier visualization, since users can look at just one variable and see the whole field and don't have to switch between multiple ones.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: