Skip to content

[Core][Geometry] Projection constexpr#6215

Open
tteschemacher wants to merge 13 commits intomasterfrom
core/projection_const_expr
Open

[Core][Geometry] Projection constexpr#6215
tteschemacher wants to merge 13 commits intomasterfrom
core/projection_const_expr

Conversation

@tteschemacher
Copy link
Contributor

Dear all,

I am adding here some defined constexpr for the results of the projection functions.

This is the follow up of #6186. It is the same but with clean commits.

Thx!

@tteschemacher
Copy link
Contributor Author

@loumalouomega @philbucher do you have a glue what is happening with the test in CI? It shouldn't fail due to that change?!

@philbucher
Copy link
Member

Well, it fails :)
Can you change the verbosity (I think to TESTS_OUTPUT) to see which test fails?

@philbucher
Copy link
Member

that is the error:
corrupted size vs. prev_size

Not sure if related to this PR

@tteschemacher
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks, I hardly think so...

@philbucher
Copy link
Member

philbucher commented Jan 14, 2020

what is very strange to me is this output:

Test_ConstitutiveLaw_SmallStrainIsotropicDamageTractionOnly3D            OK.

TestnurbsUtilities                                                       OK.

/__w/Kratos/Kratos/bin/Custom/applications//MeshingApplication/tests/test_MeshingApplication.py
Ran 1335 of 1463 test cases in 21.1892s. OK
Running cpp tests
corrupted size vs. prev_size
Aborted (core dumped)

@tteschemacher
Copy link
Contributor Author

tteschemacher commented Jan 14, 2020

It's coming in all new prs, now

@tteschemacher tteschemacher added the FastPR This Pr is simple and / or has been already tested and the revision should be fast label Feb 3, 2020
@roigcarlo roigcarlo added this to the Cad Integration milestone Jul 21, 2021
@tteschemacher tteschemacher requested a review from a team as a code owner September 9, 2021 11:16
@tteschemacher
Copy link
Contributor Author

@KratosMultiphysics/technical-committee

I just realized that a quite long time ago we had this PR to avoid the issues which were arising due to misunderstanding return values. By the time we thought by introducing constexpr this would be much easier to understand. Do you think we should proceed with this idea and add the respecive names?

@tteschemacher
Copy link
Contributor Author

Otherwise, we could close this PR - I am fine with either solution - so - open to discussion.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CAD Integration FastPR This Pr is simple and / or has been already tested and the revision should be fast

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants