add phase to all laser implementations#708
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if it does not have a unit, do not "fake convert" it. -> no entry necessary.
|
@PrometheusPi suggested a better refactoring to add a general support where and how to define the phase of a laser. |
|
@PrometheusPi close as outdated for now? If I remember correctly, you wanted to give it a fresh start. |
|
We can close or keep it. I will overwrite the last commits anyway. Keep it, so I have a more urgent reminder 😁 |
|
ok, fine with me :) |
55fb3e6 to
3a24663
Compare
|
added an implementation for all lasers |
|
added |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shouldn't that be a += ?
you are going to overwrite the input parameter by that (even if it is zero by default).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I did this on purpose to avoid any conflict wheter one should set the pase in laserConfig.param or in the laser implementation.
Why do we use this reference approach anyways?
I thought wait-4-author/WIP is only needed if it is not obvious that you still need feedback. (Checklist still not complete was obvious enough for me.) 😄
|
Tests were successful: I used the PIConGPU example LaserWakefield with no particles to simulate all lasers. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
since LASER_PHASE is already float_X that line should be
phase += float_X(w * runTime) + LASER_PHASE;There was a problem hiding this comment.
True, I will fix that.
b7031a3 to
326eb0c
Compare
|
btw: tests look good, well done! 👍 |
|
I will remove |
add phase to all laser implementations





This pull request adds a phase to all laser implementation thus allowing to run simulations suggested by @ssstuvz.
ToDo:
check if setting phase works for:
@ax3l:
This pull request adjusts:
laserConfig.unitlesslaserConfig.paramand thus needs an entry to the
CHANGELOG.mdafter it is merged tomaster.