Skip to content
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

Explicitly Manage Boundary Conditions #199

Open
pulsipher opened this issue Jan 7, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Explicitly Manage Boundary Conditions #199

pulsipher opened this issue Jan 7, 2022 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request modeling Something to do with our infinite model capabilities
Milestone

Comments

@pulsipher
Copy link
Collaborator

Currently, we define boundary conditions as constraints, but the model doesn't explicitly track/identify these. We should explicitly track these to enhance error checking and better support transformation methods.

One possibility would be to tag them:

@constraint(model, [constr_expr], BoundaryCondition)

And/or we can automatically detect them by interrogating each constraint made.

With these constraints identified, we can potentially work to avoid boundary condition conflicts. This has some connection to #166 and #167. This should be helpful with PDE transformation methods.

@pulsipher pulsipher added enhancement New feature or request modeling Something to do with our infinite model capabilities labels Jan 7, 2022
@pulsipher pulsipher added this to the v0.6 milestone Jan 7, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request modeling Something to do with our infinite model capabilities
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant