MassFlowSources require nPorts>=1 #2281
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
HansOlsson
added
L: Fluid
|
@casella Any comment on this? |
hubertus65
approved these changes
Jan 21, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Underlying issue: If the mass flow source has nPorts=0 (the default) the model is singular (since the mass-flow is given in some way and also zero since there is nothing connected). Note that the other fluid-boundary elements do not have this restriction, and flow-sources in other domains at least have the connector-elements.
In general this can be complicated to detect - but in this case we can just set a minimum for nPorts to document that the model requires nPorts>=1 (the actual value of nPorts should be indirectly set by connecting to the ports), and help tools test this model and detect when it is used incorrectly. That's what I did.
It might be that this modifier should be on the original declaration in PartialFlowSource instead, and/or that an assertion would be clearer.