On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, David Knezevic wrote:

> I've attached a modified version of misc_ex9 that attaches
> constraints on one side of the "crack" and checks if the dof
> constraints are present during assembly. This passes in serial but
> fails in parallel because constraints are not communicated on the
> GhostingFunctor-coupled-dofs.

I had to make a couple fixes to the test: switching mesh_1 and mesh_2
to SerialMesh, and using

dof_id_type neighbor_node_id = 

to handle the case where node id isn't node dof id.

> The extra constraints I added mean that the problem doesn't make
> physical sense anymore unfortunately, but at least it tests for the
> constraint issue. Roy: I'm not sure if this is appropriate for a
> unit test, but it should at least be helpful for when you want to
> check your implementation.

It was, thanks!  Here's hoping #1120 fixes the real problem too.

The modified ex9 is too big for a unit test, and too contrived for an
example, and I can't think of any easy way to fix that while
maintaining the same level of test coverage.  But if you can come up
with anything that doesn't have both those problems I'd really love to
get this case into continuous integration.

If you can't come up with anything either... I suppose I could combine
an extra-ghost-layers test case with a Dirichlet boundary and test a
wide stencil?  That should hit the same code paths.  Plus, it's about
time libMesh expanded into the cutting edge world of finite difference

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Libmesh-devel mailing list

Reply via email to