Conversation
Although i'm fairly confident of all changes, these changes MAY HAVE ALTERED the fundamentals of some tests!! Therefore, a thorough review is needed, sorry. This commit changes most test files, but not all. There are some things i'm unsure of, such as plain-strain, Cosserat, visco, so in most of those cases i have not changed the test files.
Although i'm fairly confident of all changes, these changes MAY HAVE ALTERED the fundamentals of some tests!! Therefore, a thorough review is needed, sorry. Various files that use the old Action remain unchanged because i was unsure of how I should change them
|
Job Documentation, step Docs: sync website on 4d830b8 wanted to post the following: View the site here This comment will be updated on new commits. |
|
Job Coverage, step Generate coverage on 4d830b8 wanted to post the following: Framework coverage
Modules coverageSolid mechanics
Thermal hydraulics
Full coverage reportsReports
This comment will be updated on new commits. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GiudGiud
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
doco needs to be updated. I ll push a commit
if you don't want to deal with a lot of merge conflicts we need to process this soon
modules/solid_mechanics/test/tests/central_difference/lumped/1D/1d_nodalmass_implicit.i
Show resolved
Hide resolved
modules/solid_mechanics/test/tests/central_difference/lumped/2D/2d_nodalmass_implicit.i
Show resolved
Hide resolved
7779509 to
e1f5163
Compare
…ere transitioned to recommended syntax
for GeneralizedPlaneStrain
e1f5163 to
4d830b8
Compare
|
Test failures are unrelated. |
|
I'll take a look. Seeing all these input files reminds me that we really need to run |
agree but I did that years ago and several team members shot that effort down for dubious reasons. I'm not going to touch that again |
Can you perhaps find the issue/PR on that? It might be worth bringing up now that we have more mature formatting support from the LSP effort. If people are onboard this time, the first step would be to add a civet format check on any new input file checked into the repo, which means more work for @loganharbour ... Since @bwspenc has agreed to take a look, I guess I won't volunteer myself to avoid duplicate effort. But let me know if you need my help reviewing this PR. |
|
Thanks, I'll take it and let you know if I have any questions, @hugary1995 ! I guess we shouldn't hijack this PR to discuss hit format. I'll just briefly add that I've seen a couple of things related to that that reminded me recently how much I'd like to do this:
If we can do it for python and C++ files we can do it for input files. Anyway, we can discuss this more somewhere else, because it's off-topic for this PR. |
modules/solid_mechanics/doc/content/source/materials/ComputeAxisymmetric1DFiniteStrain.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| if different mesh subdomain has different generalized plane strain model, multiple subblocks with subdomain restrictions can be used. | ||
| If a generalized plane strain model is applied for the whole simulation domain, a single subblock should be used. | ||
| If different mesh subdomain has different generalized plane strain model, multiple subblocks with subdomain restrictions can be used. | ||
| This syntax is paired with the `[Kernels/SolidMechanics]` syntax which is deprecated. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So is there no way to do this with non-deprecated syntax? That is an important feature, so we should properly support that if we can't. Can't we do this with multiple blocks with generalized plane strain nested under
[Physics/SolidMechanics/QuasiStatic]?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
dont think but feel free to try it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just tried
do you see an error in that? This does not converge (in generalized_plain_strain_squares.i)
I think the other action syntax (all in a single Physics/SolidMechanics/QuasiStatic with the generalized_plain_.. strain parameters) is nicer
[Physics]
[SolidMechanics]
[./GeneralizedPlaneStrain]
[./gps1]
use_displaced_mesh = true
displacements = 'disp_x disp_y' # moved to globalParams
scalar_out_of_plane_strain = scalar_strain_zz1
block = '1'
[../]
[./gps2]
use_displaced_mesh = true
displacements = 'disp_x disp_y'
scalar_out_of_plane_strain = scalar_strain_zz2
block = '2'
[../]
[../]
[QuasiStatic]
[gps1]
use_displaced_mesh = false
temperature = temp
save_in = 'saved_x saved_y'
strain = small
incremental = false
eigenstrain_names = eigenstrain
block = '1'
[]
[gps2]
use_displaced_mesh = false
temperature = temp
save_in = 'saved_x saved_y'
strain = small
incremental = false
eigenstrain_names = eigenstrain
block = '2'
[]
[]
[]
[]
| if different mesh subdomain has different generalized plane strain model, multiple subblocks with subdomain restrictions can be used. | ||
| If a generalized plane strain model is applied for the whole simulation domain, a single subblock should be used. | ||
| If different mesh subdomain has different generalized plane strain model, multiple subblocks with subdomain restrictions can be used. | ||
| This syntax is paired with the `[Kernels/SolidMechanics]` syntax which is deprecated. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as my comment on this in another file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is the same action, just different syntax
| @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ | |||
| add_variables = true | |||
| strain = FINITE | |||
| generate_output = 'vonmises_stress effective_alt_total_strain' | |||
| incremental = true | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The defaults for this generally work. I see you added incremental to a lot of files. Is your thinking that we should just be more explicit about this? I'm not opposed to that.
modules/solid_mechanics/test/tests/central_difference/lumped/1D/1d_nodalmass_implicit.i
Show resolved
Hide resolved
- typo - add a comment on 0 density material
3d9b59a to
c93ac06
Compare
|
Job Test, step Results summary on c93ac06 wanted to post the following: Framework test summaryCompared against 167d99f in job civet.inl.gov/job/3642141. No change Modules test summaryCompared against 167d99f in job civet.inl.gov/job/3642141. No change |
Refs #32410
Notes
Although i'm fairly confident of all changes, these changes MAY HAVE ALTERED the fundamentals of some tests!! Therefore, a thorough (and rather boring) review is needed, sorry.
Various files that use the old Action remain unchanged because i was unsure of how I should change them
Use of AI
I used AI to do the changes. I checked the results, but my ignorance of various aspects means the results could be wrong. Here are summaries of the prompts I used