Add generic nodal/modal bilinear form routines#103
Conversation
|
Not sure why ruff was failing here. It wasn't failing locally, and I didn't change any of the files the ruff CI test was complaining about. Fixed them anyway, but happy to revert if it seems like a CI bug. The changes in |
That's a new check in ruff 0.8.2: astral-sh/ruff#14611. Thanks for fixing it! |
inducer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, this looks great! Just a few style quibbles below.
|
Seems like |
Those seem to be due to an issue with some new numpy typing changes: numpy/numpy#27957. |
|
The first go was a confusing amalgamation of two versions of applying an operator to evaluate a bilinear form. They should now be cleanly separated with names that do a better job of describing what's happening. What I mean by "two versions" is:
Hopefully this is more clear. Happy to convert to a draft if we think more work needs to be done |
alexfikl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just took a quick look and left some comments 😁
|
Unsubscribing... @-mention or request review once it's ready for a look or needs attention. |
…nd-modal-bilinear-forms
|
@inducer This is ready for another look |
inducer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some thoughts from a quick scroll below.
Co-authored-by: Andreas Klöckner <inform@tiker.net>
…anc/modepy into nodal-and-modal-bilinear-forms
…nd-modal-bilinear-forms
|
Thanks, LGTM! |
It would be helpful to have a more general version of
nodal_quad_mass_matrix. My specific use case for this routine is generating operators representing bilinear forms that have derivatives on the test functions but not necessarily on the trial functions. More generally, this can be useful to generate operators representing bilinear forms whose test and trial functions are not the same.Functionality of
nodal_quad_mass_matrixandmodal_quad_mass_matrixare updated to use the new, general routines.