SVD composite DVs for VSP and ESP

[ArshSaja]

Purpose

Expected time until merged

This PR includes the @nwu63 composite DV concept of FFD cases. A similar formulation is implemented to use the SVD transformation for VSP and ESP design variables. A test for VSP is also included.

Type of change

• [ ] Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Breaking change (non-backwards-compatible fix or feature)
• [ ] Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• [ ] Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
• [ ] Documentation update
• [ ] Maintenance update
• [ ] Other (please describe)

Testing

Checklist

• [x] I have run flake8 and black to make sure the Python code adheres to PEP-8 and is consistently formatted
• [ ] I have formatted the Fortran code with fprettify or C/C++ code with clang-format as applicable
• [x] I have run unit and regression tests which pass locally with my changes
• [x] I have added new tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• [ ] I have added necessary documentation

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #170 (e3916c9) into main (4ac53e0) will decrease coverage by 0.36%. The diff coverage is 61.02%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #170      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   64.14%   63.78%   -0.36%     
==========================================
  Files          47       47              
  Lines       11866    11954      +88     
==========================================
+ Hits         7611     7625      +14     
- Misses       4255     4329      +74     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pygeo/mphys/mphys_dvgeo.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
pygeo/parameterization/BaseDVGeo.py	66.66% <61.53%> (-3.34%)	:arrow_down:
pygeo/parameterization/DVGeoSketch.py	68.22% <64.17%> (-1.55%)	:arrow_down:
pygeo/parameterization/DVGeoESP.py	66.29% <91.66%> (+1.41%)	:arrow_up:
pygeo/parameterization/DVGeoVSP.py	81.54% <92.30%> (+0.11%)	:arrow_up:
pygeo/parameterization/DVGeo.py	68.63% <100.00%> (+2.23%)	:arrow_up:
pygeo/constraints/areaConstraint.py	50.50% <0.00%> (-25.42%)	:arrow_down:
pygeo/constraints/DVCon.py	68.48% <0.00%> (-3.25%)	:arrow_down:
pygeo/parameterization/designVars.py	79.25% <0.00%> (+1.59%)	:arrow_up:
... and 1 more

:mega: We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[ArshSaja]

Test for FFD is added..

[ArshSaja]

What is the case in which you do not want to add input? Why is this only here for the VSP DV and none of the other types (from what I can tell)? @hajdik

When the composite DVs are added to openmdao, the default VSP DVs are DVs anymore. Therefore, we don't have output for these DVs. If the VSP DVs are added as inputs, OpenMDAO will consider them as DVs.

[ArshSaja]

Why was this argument added? It looks like s gets set to none in one case and returned from a function in the other case so the argument is always overwritten @hajdik

Right! the option was not necessary, it was removed.

[hajdik]

When the composite DVs are added to openmdao, the default VSP DVs are DVs anymore. Therefore, we don't have output for these DVs. If the VSP DVs are added as inputs, OpenMDAO will consider them as DVs.

So does this not happen for other composite DVs when used in MPhys?

[ArshSaja]

When the composite DVs are added to openmdao, the default VSP DVs are DVs anymore. Therefore, we don't have output for these DVs. If the VSP DVs are added as inputs, OpenMDAO will consider them as DVs.

So does this not happen for other composite DVs when used in MPhys?

This is the same for all composite DV cases. The optimizer has the information on composite DVs only, it doesn't have the information on the default DVs from VSP. pyGeo does the transformation from composite to default DVs when the necessary changes are required inside it.

[hajdik]

This is the same for all composite DV cases. The optimizer has the information on composite DVs only, it doesn't have the information on the default DVs from VSP. pyGeo does the transformation from composite to default DVs when the necessary changes are required inside it.

If it would be the same for all composite DVs, shouldn't the if add_input statement be added to all of the nom_add functions so that MPhys will work with all DVGeos and composite DVs? Also, could you add a comment explaining why the if statement is there to the code so it is more clear?

[ArshSaja]

This is the same for all composite DV cases. The optimizer has the information on composite DVs only, it doesn't have the information on the default DVs from VSP. pyGeo does the transformation from composite to default DVs when the necessary changes are required inside it.

If it would be the same for all composite DVs, shouldn't the if add_input statement be added to all of the nom_add functions so that MPhys will work with all DVGeos and composite DVs? Also, could you add a comment explaining why the if statement is there to the code so it is more clear?

Added the composite optionality to all DVGeo.

[ArshSaja]

The add_input is not required when we use composite DVs. so if isComposite is false by default, the input has to be added to the OpenMDAO. If isComposite is true, then we don't need to add the inputs. Now the name convention should be fine.

[ewu63]

Have we verified that the FFD DVGeo SVD tests also pass on the main branch before the PR?

[ArshSaja]

Yes I tested the same test with main branch. It was working.