-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 83
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use GeometryMapping in BCValues #859
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #859 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 93.28% 93.28%
=======================================
Files 36 36
Lines 5224 5225 +1
=======================================
+ Hits 4873 4874 +1
Misses 351 351 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This breaks edge boundary conditions, right?
That should work fine because we use the appropriate "dof-locations" based on |
Co-authored-by: Dennis Ogiermann <termi-official@users.noreply.github.com>
Closes #849
Using
GeometryMapping
inBCValues
slightly reduces code duplication and makes the similarity (and differences) betweenBCValues
andFaceValues
clearer. Not sure why faster on construction, but forupdate!
it probably comes from the performance annotations used following theFaceValues
setup with inbounds and inlines.Updated benchmark after #860, values from run 2 below
Construction
update!(ch, t)
Benchmark script and results