Hyperelastic RMT code with updated modular precision #767
Conversation
…dded hypo to 6-eq model in m_global_params for pre,sim,post_process to expand sys_size
| do l = 0, p | ||
| do k = 0, n | ||
| do j = 0, m | ||
| do l = 0, p - 2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
where does the -2 come from? is this fd_order - 2 = 2? if so, `fd_order refers to something used in post-processing and probes, not in the simulation code for finite differencing during simulation (though I would understand the confusion).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is due to boundary conditions that have not been coded for RMT and connected to the s_populate_variables_buffers issue below.. I will investigate this further.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you put something in m_checker then that stops MFC when it detects that hyperelasticity is used with a BC it does not support?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I can definitely do that.
|
The chemistry cases are failing... I'm wondering if one of our merges, we/I messed up chemistry. I suspect so. @mrodrig6 Update: nevermind, was just failing a couple example cases and I read the output wrong. |
…en running hypo or hyperelasticity
|
@mrodrig6 I think I fixed everything that was breaking the CI. Two to-dos that I cannot seem to do myself:
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #767 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 44.72% 44.55% -0.17%
==========================================
Files 62 62
Lines 17555 17612 +57
Branches 2044 2050 +6
==========================================
- Hits 7851 7847 -4
- Misses 8439 8494 +55
- Partials 1265 1271 +6 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
requesting code review from @ChrisZYJ |
|
@mrodrig6 Could you please take a look at issue #771? It would be very helpful if you could identify the error and implement a quick fix. If not, I'm happy to help revert your previous PR's changes to the hypoelasticity module - it seems that would solve the problem. (It appears your previous PR changed how finite difference coefficients are computed, but didn't add new functionality for hypoelasticity. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) |
Type of change
Scope
If you cannot check the above box, please split your PR into multiple PRs that each have a common goal.
How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes.
Tested the code on NCSA Delta and passed the full test suite and most example cases.
Provide instructions so we can reproduce.
Ran on 2 GPUs with one CPU each on an interactive node
./mfc.sh test -j 8 --max-attempt 3 -- -c delta
Test Configuration:
Checklist
docs/)examples/that demonstrate my new feature performing as expected.They run to completion and demonstrate "interesting physics"
./mfc.sh formatbefore committing my codeIf your code changes any code source files (anything in
src/simulation)To make sure the code is performing as expected on GPU devices, I have:
nvtxranges so that they can be identified in profiles./mfc.sh run XXXX --gpu -t simulation --nsys, and have attached the output file (.nsys-rep) and plain text results to this PR./mfc.sh run XXXX --gpu -t simulation --omniperf, and have attached the output file and plain text results to this PR.