Set TreeMesh capacity attribute also when using MPI

[benegee]

Resolves #1861

[github-actions[bot]]

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

• [ ] The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• [ ] All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• [ ] No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• [ ] The code can be understood easily.
• [ ] Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• [ ] There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• [ ] There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• [ ] The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• [ ] New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• [ ] Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• [ ] Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• [ ] Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• [ ] If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md.

Testing

• [ ] The PR passes all tests.
• [ ] New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• [ ] New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• [ ] There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• [ ] If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• [ ] The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• [ ] If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results are posted in the PR.

Created with :heart: by the Trixi.jl community.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 89.44%. Comparing base (b11bc10) to head (485355a). Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/meshes/mesh_io.jl	0.00%	1 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1862 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 89.45% 89.44% -0.00% ========================================== Files 438 438 Lines 35592 35593 +1 ========================================== Hits 31836 31836 - Misses 3756 3757 +1 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/pull/1862/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=trixi-framework) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/pull/1862/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=trixi-framework) | `89.44% <0.00%> (-<0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=trixi-framework#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[sloede]

Thanks! Did you check whether loading a mesh in serial works when you save it in parallel with a small capacity? I don't remember right now whether the capacity is a local one or needs to be big enough to store the data from all MPI ranks in parallel. That's why I'm asking.

The capacity is always global. Since the TreeMesh is parallelized by keeping a full copy on each rank and just syncing it between the processes, a "local" capacity does not make much sense anyways

[benegee]

Thanks for the explanation. I would not have known.

I only tested running the simulation in parallel and reading the results in serial via Trixi2Vtk.