further development of coupled bioelectric finite elasticity

adamreeve commented 11 years ago

Hi Thomas, there's also something funny going on in your opencmiss.f90. You've changed MeshComponentElementsType to MESH_ELEMENTS_TYPE, which causes the build to fail. And you've also removed all of the distributed matrix and vector code. Was that intentional? There's also a lot of changes to data point projection code???

chrispbradley commented 10 years ago

@adamreeve are you happy with Thomas's changes in response to your comments?

adamreeve commented 10 years ago

Hi Chris, yes it all looks good to me now, thanks for fixing that up Thomas.

adamreeve commented 10 years ago

Hi @chrispbradley, it looks like both Thomas and Mylena have added code for outputting solutions at load increment steps, so there's some merge conflicts here. The actual conflicts look pretty simple to resolve, but is it ok to have two code-paths for achieving the same thing? I think it's probably fine for now and we can resolve this properly after the prefix change?

One thing that does need fixing with Mylena's code is she added a "ELASTICITY_CONTROL_LOOP_POST_LOOP" rather than using the existing "Elasticity_ControlLoopPostLoop".

el-tomo commented 10 years ago

Hi Adam, Chris, Mylena

actually I coded both of them. Mylena used some of my code since she wanted to write out the solution at load increments as well. Chris than asked me to rewrite the code, to make it consistent with time dependent output.

@Mylena, can you remove this part of your code and commit again? I guess it would be:

ELASTICITY_CONTROL_LOOP_POST_LOOP
FINITE_ELASTICITY_CONTROL_LOOP_POST_LOOP
???_WRITE_INTERMEDIATE_RESULTS
CMISS_???_WriteIntermediateResults but I don't have access to OpenCMISS here... Looking at your commit on github will tell you the exact places... Let me know if you need help!

Cheers, Thomas

Hi @chrispbradley, it looks like both Thomas and Mylena have added code for outputting solutions at load increment steps, so there's some merge conflicts here. The actual conflicts look pretty simple to resolve, but is it ok to have two code-paths for achieving the same thing? I think it's probably fine for now and we can resolve this properly after the prefix change?

One thing that does need fixing with Mylena's code is she added a "ELASTICITY_CONTROL_LOOP_POST_LOOP" rather than using the existing "Elasticity_ControlLoopPostLoop".

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/OpenCMISS/cm/pull/176#issuecomment-29019748

OpenCMISS / cm

further development of coupled bioelectric finite elasticity #176