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

Time spectral with flexible grid #169

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Dec 16, 2021
Merged

Conversation

SichengHe
Copy link
Collaborator

@SichengHe SichengHe commented Oct 14, 2021

Purpose

The commit is related to time spectral with a flexible grid. It also contains a simple 2D regression test case.

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

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
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 15, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #169 (5e2ee2b) into master (08f431a) will decrease coverage by 15.07%.
The diff coverage is 45.45%.

❗ Current head 5e2ee2b differs from pull request most recent head 49b2c5e. Consider uploading reports for the commit 49b2c5e to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #169       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   42.74%   27.66%   -15.08%     
===========================================
  Files          15       15               
  Lines        3495     3502        +7     
===========================================
- Hits         1494      969      -525     
- Misses       2001     2533      +532     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
adflow/pyADflow.py 42.34% <45.45%> (-24.77%) ⬇️
adflow/MExt.py 79.48% <0.00%> (-17.95%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 08f431a...49b2c5e. Read the comment docs.

@SichengHe SichengHe marked this pull request as ready for review October 28, 2021 18:27
@SichengHe SichengHe requested a review from a team as a code owner October 28, 2021 18:27
Copy link
Collaborator

@sseraj sseraj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I will review the code soon, but I wanted to comment on the options

adflow/pyADflow.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@SichengHe SichengHe mentioned this pull request Oct 29, 2021
Copy link
Collaborator

@sseraj sseraj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall this looks fine, but I would like some clarification on the following points

adflow/pyADflow.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
adflow/pyADflow.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
adflow/pyADflow.py Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/solverUtils.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
end subroutine gridVelocitiesFineLevel_TS
#endif

subroutine gridVelocitiesFineLevel_TS_block(nn, sps)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should there be AD code for this like there is for gridVelocitiesFineLevel_block?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes. It is in my branch and will be pushed.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was going to make the same comment. I don't see the AD'd version of this subroutine in this PR.

adflow/pyADflow.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/options.yaml Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/solverUtils.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/solverUtils.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@sseraj sseraj changed the title Timespectral merge Time spectral with flexible grid Nov 5, 2021
@SichengHe
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Could we merge now? Do I need to do anything else? @sseraj @marcomangano

@anilyil
Copy link
Contributor

anilyil commented Nov 13, 2021

I haven't reviewed this yet; I wasn't sure if it was ready or not. Can you give me a few days to review this?

@anilyil anilyil self-requested a review November 13, 2021 19:54
@SichengHe
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@anilyil Sounds good. Thanks!

@marcomangano
Copy link
Contributor

I assume the test will keep failing until we fix the issue with Azure, so we can ignore it for now. I don't have additional recommendations, but I will let the experts review this!

Copy link
Contributor

@anilyil anilyil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi, sorry for the delay. I left a few comments. Thanks!

src/f2py/adflow.pyf Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
end subroutine gridVelocitiesFineLevel_TS
#endif

subroutine gridVelocitiesFineLevel_TS_block(nn, sps)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was going to make the same comment. I don't see the AD'd version of this subroutine in this PR.

@ewu63
Copy link
Collaborator

ewu63 commented Dec 1, 2021

@SichengHe please take a look at the reviewer comments

@sseraj
Copy link
Collaborator

sseraj commented Dec 10, 2021

I think the only thing still left to do here is to add the AD code?

@SichengHe
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@sseraj Could we actually merge this first? I am planning to create another PR for the ADed code later this month.

@anilyil
Copy link
Contributor

anilyil commented Dec 13, 2021

adding the AD code later is fine for me. @sseraj up to you if you want the AD code in this PR. Otherwise this is good to go for me

@marcomangano
Copy link
Contributor

@sseraj @SichengHe what is the decision then? Shall we wait for the ADed code, or shall we move on and merge this?

Copy link
Collaborator

@sseraj sseraj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would prefer to have the AD code in the same PR but I am fine with merging this to avoid the PR getting stale.

@sseraj sseraj merged commit f870d03 into mdolab:master Dec 16, 2021
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.

None yet

5 participants