-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 95
refactor: Refactor/cleanup partitions #3609
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
rrsettgast
wants to merge
6
commits into
develop
Choose a base branch
from
refactor/cleanupPartitions
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
dd9f9ae
remove duplicate DomainPartition::m_neighbors. replace with Partition…
rrsettgast 80ecd11
fix some missing includes
rrsettgast b256eb7
typo
rrsettgast a3949ca
reinsert the registration of DomainPartition::neighbor to avoid integ…
rrsettgast 762c17a
remove neighbor creation from SpatialPartition::setSizes
rrsettgast d8eca1f
Merge branch 'develop' into refactor/cleanupPartitions
rrsettgast File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We used to have two versions of
m_neighbors
: one inDomainPartition
, one inSpatialPartition
.Despite sharing the same name, I have the impression that:
SpatialPartition
version used to be a "strict" list of neighbors.DomainPartition
version also appended the neighbors of neighbors.After this refactoring, I understand only one version will remain. It will be stored in
SpatialPartition
, and will now include the neighbors of neighbors.If that's correct, this might conflict notably with the Particles machinery (e.g.
SpatialPartition::repartitionMasterParticles
) which was relying so far on the "strict" definition of neighbors.Best case scenario: the MPM will simply iterate over more neighbors for nothing.
NB: the CI tests for MPM may still run fine as they seem to use a 1x1x1 or 2x2x1 partition... meaning they won't generate neighbors of neighbors anyway.