Fixing symmetry for right wings

[timryanb]

Purpose

This PR addresses #244. Symmetric wings can now be used with the aerodynamics solver if they lie in the right side of the symmetry plane. Prior to this, OAS only gave correct results for left wings.

Expected time until merged

a week

Type of change

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (non-backwards-compatible fix or feature)
• Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
• Documentation update
• Maintenance update
• Other (please describe)

Testing

This fix can be tested by taking a standard left wing model and flipping the y nodes a shown below:

# Flip left wing to lie on right of symmetry plane
mesh[:, :ny, :] = inputs[mesh_name]
mesh[:, ny+1:, :] = inputs[mesh_name][:, ::-1, :]
mesh[:, ny+1:, 1] *= -1.

The new flipped surface can be passed to the aerodynamic component and should give a consistent solution to a left wing or full wing model.

Checklist

• I have run flake8 and black to make sure the code adheres to PEP-8 and is consistently formatted
• I have run unit and regression tests which pass locally with my changes
• I have added new tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added necessary documentation

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #381 (b680a19) into main (4110247) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #381      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.61%   96.63%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          93       93              
  Lines        5912     5937      +25     
==========================================
+ Hits         5712     5737      +25     
  Misses        200      200              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
aerodynamics/eval_mtx.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
aerodynamics/vortex_mesh.py	99.28% <0.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️

📣 Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

[kanekosh]

Thank you @timryanb! I added a few comments on the new regression tests.

[kanekosh]

Instead of the hardcoded values, would you be able to do the following?

1. Run the original left-wing case (duplicate of test_simple_rect_aero.py)
2. Run the right-wing case
3. Assert_near_equal between the left-wing results and right-wing results

I saw that the hardcoded values here are identical to test_simple_rect_aero.py, so my suggestion is equivalent to the current assert_equal. But I think it'd be safer to compare the left-wing and right-wing directly, in case we need to change the reference values in the future.
This will double the test time, but it should be fine for this small mesh case.

[timryanb]

Should be addressed now

[kanekosh]

Same as I commented in test_simple_rect_right_aero.py: instead of the hardcoded values, would you be able to do the following?

1. Run the original left-wing case (duplicate of test_aero_ground_effect.py)
2. Run the right-wing case
3. Assert_near_equal between the left-wing results and right-wing results

[timryanb]

Should be addressed now

[kanekosh]

Thank you @timryanb! I'll merge this PR after fixing black in a separate PR - they recently broke a thrid-party dependency and we need to version up black to fix that.

[ewu63]

Maybe we also want to bump the version and make a new release?