Communicate FieldPerp consistently with other Fields#3321
Closed
Communicate FieldPerp consistently with other Fields#3321
FieldPerp consistently with other Fields#3321Conversation
- Store a `variant` in `FieldGroup` that can handle `FieldPerp` - Removes `Mesh::communicate(FieldPerp&)` overload
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This will help simplify the Z parallelisation by being able to reuse the existing
Mesh::communicateinfrastructure.variantinFieldGroupthat can handleFieldPerpMesh::communicate(FieldPerp&)overloadA couple of alternatives to this:
is2D()andisPerp()virtual methods onFieldData, and implementations on all theFields andVectorsField*instead ofFieldData*in theFieldGroupMesh::msg_lenandBoutMesh::pack_data/unpack_datato virtual methods onFieldDataThe latter is not great, because they're really details of the mesh, and I wasn't keen on adding more single-use virtual methods -- but now that I've implemented this method, they might've been simpler!
@bendudson Thoughts? This seems "cleaner" in some ways, but definitely also makes things more complicated and slows down compilation