john-hen
commented
3 years ago This issue is on hold. In that I, for one, am not working on this. As it stands, the evaluate() method does everything I need it to do.
Work on this might resume if someone contributes a demonstration model. That is, a simple model (as simple as possible, a minimal example) that uses one of these other (more esoteric) dataset types and makes clear what output evaluate() should return in that use case. Coding this is most likely the less time-consuming part as the Comsol API is well documented. More important is the demo model. Not just to clarify expectations, also to serve as a test case to be integrated into MPh's test suite.
It should be noted that in many cases there may be another, and perhaps better, way to achieve the same thing in application code. For example, instead of evaluating on a cut-point dataset, one could also define a domain point probe (if the point's coordinates are given) or a point probe (if the point is a vertex) or even an integration operator (for more flexibility), and then evaluate the corresponding global expression.
As pointed out by @max3-2 in #22 and briefly discussed in #16, the
evaluate()method of theModelclass should support the evaluation of expressions on all dataset types, or at least the most common ones.Currently supported are expressions in domains from datasets that directly map to a solution (using Comsol's
Evalfeature), global evaluations (usingGlobalin thenumerical()branch of the Java API), and expressions on particle data (usingEvalPoint).Currently not supported are cut points and cut planes, and probably more. The proposal is to add support for these in
evaluate(). Ideally, mapping to the adequate Comsol feature should be completely transparent to the MPh user. Use-case examples for these other dataset types should be added to the demonstration modelcapacitor.mphso that the implementation can be covered by the test suite.