Closed hajdik closed 5 months ago
@eytanadler can you check that this runs on your MPhys case with child DVGeos?
Attention: Patch coverage is 0%
with 26 lines
in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 65.45%. Comparing base (
d3f5e6d
) to head (19f5d7d
).
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
pygeo/mphys/mphys_dvgeo.py | 0.00% | 26 Missing :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
@eytanadler can you check that this runs on your MPhys case with child DVGeos?
It seems to work for my case
@mdolab/pygeo_maintainers this is ready to merge, but I don't have the permissions. Can one of you take care of it?
Purpose
A small change introduced to DVGeo with how DV names were handled wasn't propagated to the MPhys wrapper. This change was to append the DVGeo name to the DV name when a name is present, which mostly only happens when you have multiple DVGeos to keep track of. MPhys wasn't expecting this full name so it wasn't accumulating the derivatives and they were all 0. Try this one cool trick to get 0-1s in one iteration!
I also cleaned up some random duplicate code and simplified the handling of child DVGeos in MPhys
Expected time until merged
This isn't urgent, likely no one else has this use case
Type of change
Testing
Creating two DVGeo objects (or just naming one) leads to immediate 0-1s. Maybe someone with MPhys scripts (especially using child DVGeos) should run using this to make sure I didn't miss anything?
Checklist
flake8
andblack
to make sure the Python code adheres to PEP-8 and is consistently formattedfprettify
or C/C++ code withclang-format
as applicable** is it time to talk about how we can implement tests for our MPhys wrappers