Closed cbegeman closed 5 months ago
@xylar I might replace this later with something more robust and elegant. This is a quick fix.
@xylar That's a good idea! I'll put that on the to-do list for after AGU.
@xylar Let me know what you think. I decided to go with just moving polygon coordinates so that they don't cross boundaries rather than removing or adding additional polygons (corresponding to cells or edge kites). The side that the polygons end up on depends on the value of xCell
or xEdge
(yCell
or yEdge
) so it can result in jagged boundaries for the kites. I'm personally ok with that because I prefer to see the fields as they actually are when testing. With duplicated polygons plotted, it may be hard to see just how many bad values emerge at the boundary, for example. If you have a strong feeling otherwise, let me know. I don't envision we would use edge quantities for publication-ready images anyhow given how difficult normalVelocity
is to interpret by eye.
Sure, I'm fine with this approach.
I tested this approach on perlmutter with the in-development drying_slope test case. I will test it with any other tasks that produce edge-quantity viz before merging.
Merge when you're ready.
The only other task that currently plots a horizontal edge field with periodicity is baroclinic_channel. Its figure also looks good:
Fixes https://github.com/E3SM-Project/polaris/issues/149
Checklist
Testing
comment in the PR documents testing used to verify the changes