Skip to content

Restructure FunctionSpace and Form for mixed-topology meshes #3570

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

Open
jpdean opened this issue Dec 19, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

Restructure FunctionSpace and Form for mixed-topology meshes #3570

jpdean opened this issue Dec 19, 2024 · 7 comments

Comments

@jpdean
Copy link
Member

jpdean commented Dec 19, 2024

Currently, for mixed-topology meshes we have to create a FunctionSpace and Form for each cell type. This isn't very natural and leads to objects with almost the same data; for example, the main difference between the forms is just the kernel.

I think we should restructure this so we create a single FunctionSpace (with possibly multiple element types) and a single Form (with possibly multiple kernels).

This should hopefully simplify both the user interface and the assembler implementation, since we can just loop over all kernels in the assembler rather than having to reverse engineer the cell type from the form.

@Digital365Staking

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@jorgensd

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@Digital365Staking

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@jhale

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@Digital365Staking

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@jorgensd

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@francesco-ballarin

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@chrisrichardson chrisrichardson moved this from Todo to In Progress in Mixed topology meshes Jan 30, 2025
@garth-wells garth-wells marked this as a duplicate of #3565 Mar 8, 2025
@garth-wells garth-wells removed the task label Apr 12, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants