-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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
[PRE REVIEW]: Mandyoc: A finite element code to simulate thermochemical convection in parallel #3551
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post. For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
Wordcount for |
|
|
@victorsacek thanks for your interest in JOSS! Our editors in this area are at capacity right now, so I'm going to place this on our waitlist until someone becomes available. |
@jedbrown I think you are at editing capacity right now, but wanted to give you a heads-up: this looks to be right in your wheelhouse. |
OK, the editor is @jedbrown |
Thanks for this submission. While I locate reviewers, could I ask that you update the project documentation to avoid the many places where developer paths are hard-coded (and thus won't work for users). I think most of these can be removed rather than "fixed", and the documentation can state how to run the code without these scripts. (You could audit these steps in a container or a third-party computer to ensure the instructions make sense and actually work.) $ git grep /Users
examples/continental_rift/run.sh:/Users/victorsacek/Documents/petsc/arch-label-debug/bin/mpirun -n 8 \
examples/continental_rift/run.sh:/Users/victorsacek/Documents/gits/md2d/md2d_aux/mandyoc \
examples/old_version/Crameri2012_Case2/run.sh:nohup /Users/victorsacek/Documents/petsc/arch-label-debug/bin/mpirun -n 4 ./mandyoc -denok 1.0e-15 -rtol 1.0e-7 -particles_per_ele 1000 -theta_FSSA 0.5 -sub_division_time_step 1.0 -visc_harmonic_mean 0 -particles_perturb_factor 0 -visc_const_per_element 1 -pressure_in_rheol 1 <FD.in >FD.out &
examples/old_version/vanKeken1997/run.sh:nohup /Users/victorsacek/Documents/petsc/arch-label-debug/bin/mpirun -n 4 ./mandyoc -denok 1.0e-15 -particles_per_ele 1000 -theta_FSSA 0.5 -sub_division_time_step 1.0 -visc_harmonic_mean 0 -particles_perturb_factor 0 -visc_const_per_element 1 -pressure_in_rheol 1 <FD.in >FD.out &
examples/old_version/vanKeken1997_nondim/run-mg.sh:nohup /Users/victorsacek/Documents/petsc/arch-label-debug/bin/mpirun -n 4 ./mandyoc -denok 1.0e-15 -particles_per_ele 1000 -theta_FSSA 0.5 -sub_division_time_step 1.0 -visc_harmonic_mean 0 -particles_perturb_factor 0 -visc_const_per_element 1 -direct_solver 0 -pressure_in_rheol 1 -veloc_ksp_monitor_true_residual -veloc_ksp_type fgmres -veloc_pc_type mg -veloc_pc_mg_galerkin -veloc_pc_mg_levels 3 -veloc_mg_levels_ksp_max_it 8 <FD.in >FD.out &
examples/old_version/vanKeken1997_nondim/run.sh:nohup /Users/victorsacek/Documents/petsc/arch-label-debug/bin/mpirun -n 4 ./mandyoc -denok 1.0e-15 -particles_per_ele 1000 -theta_FSSA 0.5 -sub_division_time_step 1.0 -visc_harmonic_mean 0 -particles_perturb_factor 0 -visc_const_per_element 1 -direct_solver 0 -pressure_in_rheol 1 <FD.in >FD.out &
examples/vanKeken1997_case1a/run.sh:/Users/kugelblitz/opt/petsc/arch-0-fast/bin/mpirun -n 2 /Users/kugelblitz/Desktop/mandyoc-misc/mandyoc/mandyoc
src/compile.sh:make all PETSC_DIR=/Users/victorsacek/Documents/petsc PETSC_ARCH=arch-label-debug
src/compile_opt.sh:make all PETSC_DIR=/Users/victorsacek/Documents/petsc PETSC_ARCH=arch-label-optimized In the paper, please also explain its positioning relative to other software in this space. You don't have to be comprehensive, but please communicate enough about why a researcher would choose this over a representative set of well-known packages. The equations can be formatted with I see the acknowledgement mentions multigrid, but the van Keken benchmark is configured to use MUMPS. A note on solvers would be useful (even if the intent is that expert users tune using PETSc options). The paper also doesn't mention whether it supports 3D problems and at what scale it has been used. The code isn't entirely helpful in that "future 3d version" appears in comments, while some functions say they are 3d. Do you have automated tests? I see you have a GitHub action to build the docs, but not to test correctness. Some automated tests should be provided. Have you used a code coverage tool to see if there is significant dead code? Thank you for the pleasant build experience. There were a few |
Hello @jedbrown, |
@aguspesce Great! Just let reply here after making updates. You can comment |
@whedon generate pdf |
Hello @jedbrown, Thank you very much for the review of our code. We've made almost all the changes that you suggested:
We have to clarify that we decided not to create an automated test using GitHub actions because installing all dependencies to run Mandyoc and test it would take too much time for the CI. All the changes are in the release v0.1.2. Please inform us if the present version of the code is ok for review in JOSS. Thank you for your attention. |
Hello @jedbrown, is there any update on the pre review process of this submission? cc @danielskatz |
1 similar comment
Hello @jedbrown, is there any update on the pre review process of this submission? cc @danielskatz |
@aguspesce Yikes, I'm terribly sorry about my silence. Thanks for your effort here; it looks good. I see
Here's a patch to make the test run out of the box, but the scripts still use the fragile style. diff --git i/Makefile w/Makefile
index e0e91de..3d2f3e6 100644
--- i/Makefile
+++ w/Makefile
@@ -26,8 +26,6 @@ SOURCEC = $(SRC)/main.cpp \
$(SRC)/sp.cpp
OBJECTS = $(SOURCEC:%.cpp=%.o)
-MPI_PATH = ${PETSC_DIR}/${PETSC_ARCH}/bin
-
help:
@echo ""
@echo "Commands:"
@@ -40,7 +38,7 @@ help:
test_mandyoc:
@echo "Run MANDYOC test may take several minutes.."
- cd test/testing_data/ ; ${MPI_PATH}/mpirun -n 2 ../../mandyoc
+ cd test/testing_data/ ; ${MPIEXEC} -n 2 ../../mandyoc
pytest -v test/testing_result.py
# Build Mandyoc I ran this and get one test failure (
I'll find reviewers. |
@victorsacek @aguspesce Could you please include in your statement of need some related packages to help a prospective user understand the relative merits of mandyoc versus other software packages in this domain? |
@gassmoeller @rbeucher 👋 Would you be available to review this submission to JOSS? |
Hello @jedbrown Thank you very much for your attention. We modified the Makefile, changing the MPI variables for the test, as you suggested. Additionally, in the Statement of need, we added one sentence explaining that one advantage of Mandyoc is the possibility to incorporate variable boundary conditions in space and time, appropriate to simulate different pulses of tectonism in one model run. About the failure test, we tried different machines but we couldn't reproduce this failure. Please, if possible, could you send us more details about the problem? Best regards |
Hi @jedbrown, Yes I can review this submission. Looks interesting. R |
@victorsacek Thanks for your updates. I think you'll find that other software supports BCs that depend on space and time. I think this section should be specific in placing present work in the context of related work. In this case, I think it involves citing some alternatives and explaining the relative merits. Also, in the Thanks for being willing to review, @rbeucher! I'll add you and start the review. I have some emails out and will find a second reviewer as well. Of course I'd be thrilled if @bangerth or @tjhei are available. And I totally understand this present state of being burried @gassmoeller; thanks for your reply. |
OK, @rbeucher is now a reviewer |
@whedon start review |
OK, I've started the review over in #4070. |
@whedon check references |
|
Submitting author: @victorsacek (Victor Sacek)
Repository: https://github.com/ggciag/mandyoc
Version: v0.1.1
Editor: @jedbrown
Reviewers: @rbeucher
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @victorsacek. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@victorsacek if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: