Code cleanup #100
Code cleanup #100
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #100 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 51.12% 51.12%
=======================================
Files 40 40
Lines 9608 9608
=======================================
Hits 4912 4912
Misses 4696 4696
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ def evalFunctionsSensFD(self, DVGeo, DVCon, fdstep=1e-2): | |||
| funcsSens[outkey][inkey][:, array_ind] = deriv_temp | |||
| xDV[inkey][array_ind] = baseVar[array_ind] | |||
| DVGeo.setDesignVars(xDV) | |||
| DVCon.evalFunctions(dict()) | |||
| DVCon.evalFunctions({}) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've no idea why this line is needed..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mean {} instead of dict()? Or the fact that we are calling DVCon?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh now I see, it's a third call to DVCon at the end, just before exiting the FD sensitivity method.. Maybe it's just to reset the internal values, same as done by DVGeo.setDesignVars() above? I need to check the function
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nwu63 I suspect that it is needed because every time we evaluate a constraint we update the coordinates of the pyGeo object. I think that if we directly use DVGeo.update() the tests should work, up to you if you want to play with that.
I might be wrong bc I don't know what error you are getting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I've no idea, but without line 72 one of the tests fail, and if I also take out line 71 then a few more tests fail. I can see cases where 71 is needed (even though it's probably not the best practice), but not sure why 72 is needed at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't tell what that line is doing either, the error I get from taking it out is in Test 8: Circularity constraint and looks like it's not meeting the tolerance. Neil is this what you're seeing?
AssertionError:
Not equal to tolerance rtol=1e-07, atol=1e-07
Failed value for: circularity_base
Mismatched elements: 8 / 9 (88.9%)
Max absolute difference: 2.15268112e-05
Max relative difference: 2.15268112e-05
x: array([0.999989, 0.999978, 0.999987, 1. , 0.999995, 0.99998 ,
0.999981, 0.999994, 1. ])
y: array([1., 1., 1., 1., 1., 1., 1., 1., 1.])
| @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ def evalFunctionsSensFD(self, DVGeo, DVCon, fdstep=1e-2): | |||
| funcsSens[outkey][inkey][:, array_ind] = deriv_temp | |||
| xDV[inkey][array_ind] = baseVar[array_ind] | |||
| DVGeo.setDesignVars(xDV) | |||
| DVCon.evalFunctions(dict()) | |||
| DVCon.evalFunctions({}) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh now I see, it's a third call to DVCon at the end, just before exiting the FD sensitivity method.. Maybe it's just to reset the internal values, same as done by DVGeo.setDesignVars() above? I need to check the function
* added pygeo test * comments * Code cleanup (#100) * redoing last commits * adding .ref Co-authored-by: Neil Wu <602725+nwu63@users.noreply.github.com>
Purpose
This PR cleans up some of the code:
type()etc.)Type of change
What types of change is it?
Select the appropriate type(s) that describe this PR
Testing
N/A
Checklist
Put an
xin the boxes that apply.flake8andblackto make sure the code adheres to PEP-8 and is consistently formatted