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

Need warnings for improper use of polar boundaries #19

Closed
c-white opened this issue Mar 27, 2016 · 3 comments · Fixed by #200
Closed

Need warnings for improper use of polar boundaries #19

c-white opened this issue Mar 27, 2016 · 3 comments · Fixed by #200
Assignees
Labels
duplicate Another issue addresses this enhancement Improve an existing Athena++ component
Milestone

Comments

@c-white
Copy link
Contributor

c-white commented Mar 27, 2016

The caveats with polar boundaries are now enumerated in the wiki. The code does not necessarily check for these. In particular, we should probably

  1. Check that the angle limits are the exact values of 0, pi, 2*pi.
  2. Check that nx3 is even, and that nrbx3 comes out to either 1 or an even number.
  3. Check that all blocks along a pole are at the same level of refinement, in the case of SMR.
  4. Prohibit running the code in polar+AMR until these are made compatible.
@c-white c-white added the enhancement Improve an existing Athena++ component label Mar 27, 2016
@c-white
Copy link
Contributor Author

c-white commented Nov 18, 2017

Point 3 above has been changed as of 68a14ed. Now only blocks at the same radius need be at the same refinement level. This should make checking for consistency and even full compatibility with AMR much easier (using the arrays of PolarNeighborBlock structs that already cover all neighbors around the pole at the same radius).

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Apr 13, 2018

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the wontfix No action planned label Apr 13, 2018
@felker felker closed this as completed Apr 13, 2018
@felker felker reopened this Dec 31, 2018
@felker felker self-assigned this Dec 31, 2018
@felker felker added duplicate Another issue addresses this and removed wontfix No action planned labels Dec 31, 2018
@felker felker added this to To do in Usability, tools, outputs via automation Dec 31, 2018
@felker felker added this to the v1.2.0 milestone Dec 31, 2018
@felker
Copy link
Contributor

felker commented Dec 31, 2018

Status summary of the above items as of 2018-12-30:

  1. Check still missing.
  2. Added by @tomidakn on 2016-09-05 in 7dec74c
  3. SMR compatibility condition changed on 2017-11-16 in 68a14ed, but check still missing.
  4. Polar + AMR still not prohibited.

So checks for points 1, 3, and 4 should be added when addressing #196. Sounds good @c-white?

By the way, I am making these checks trigger fatal errors, not warnings.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
duplicate Another issue addresses this enhancement Improve an existing Athena++ component
Projects
2 participants