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
New test for reference residual and perf graph to demonstrate usage #13501
Conversation
Job Documentation on 480d7fd wanted to post the following: View the site here This comment will be updated on new commits. |
ac6b8d4
to
2ff9b31
Compare
Correct issue number Co-Authored-By: Andrew E Slaughter <andrew.slaughter@inl.gov>
2ff9b31
to
480d7fd
Compare
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ | |||
time,elapsed,res_calls |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can't have a test checked in with specific wall times or even number of residual calls. This will definitely be brittle. Perhaps you can just check that the file exists, or if you want to look at the content you can check in a "custom comparison" file that will be really permissive on the values (maybe a range of 0-20 seconds or between 30-50 residual calls).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the review @permcody --I've got a relative tolerance of 1000 in the tests file now (which might be the same as the custom comparison but less ideal). I'll take a look at how to check for the presence of a file and redo the commit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry I missed that... Relative tolerance of 1000 is fine. That might be better than "existence" because it'll check that the columns don't change. Either solution is fine - I'll leave that up to you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In that case I'm going to go with the lower entropy solution and leave it as is - letting laziness win out
@@ -0,0 +1,199 @@ | |||
[GlobalParams] | |||
displacements = 'disp_x disp_y disp_z' | |||
[] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@permcody I think we are using the GlobalParams for displacements after all--if I remove the global params then I need to add the displacements line to twice the master action block like so:
[Modules/TensorMechanics/Master]
displacements = 'disp_x disp_y disp_z'
[./all]
displacements = 'disp_x disp_y disp_z'
volumetric_locking_correction = true
incremental = true
save_in = 'saved_x saved_y saved_z'
eigenstrain_names = thermal_expansion
strain = FINITE
decomposition_method = EigenSolution
[../]
[]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK - Thanks for double checking!
No design change, just a demonstration of how to use the
PerfGraphData
postprocessor to call section information from ReferenceResidualProblem.Closes #13495