The current tests which have pulsatile boundary conditions only compare the first time step with an expected/analytical solution. We should be testing them against analytical/semi-analytical solution at multiple time steps to make sure the integration is being tested.
In both the tests above, only timestep 0 is compared with the reference solution.
Expected behavior
For simple test cases, such as the RCR and coronary BC blocks, we should compare with semi-analytical solutions. We can write out the governing equations for specific quantities (inlet pressure, for example) and integrate them in time using simple Euler/RK schemes to compute a reference solution to compare against.
Additional context
This is related to #95
Code of Conduct
[X] I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines
Description
The current tests which have pulsatile boundary conditions only compare the first time step with an expected/analytical solution. We should be testing them against analytical/semi-analytical solution at multiple time steps to make sure the integration is being tested.
Reproduction
Example for RCR BC test case: https://github.com/SimVascular/svZeroDSolver/blob/06d2f2485cc7415c8be2e0a75e76719943f66216/tests/test_solver.py#L294-L298
Example for coronary BC test case: https://github.com/SimVascular/svZeroDSolver/blob/06d2f2485cc7415c8be2e0a75e76719943f66216/tests/test_solver.py#L310-L314
In both the tests above, only timestep 0 is compared with the reference solution.
Expected behavior
For simple test cases, such as the RCR and coronary BC blocks, we should compare with semi-analytical solutions. We can write out the governing equations for specific quantities (inlet pressure, for example) and integrate them in time using simple Euler/RK schemes to compute a reference solution to compare against.
Additional context
This is related to #95
Code of Conduct